Shawn Johnson Thesis (HSS01-HSS05)

Improved Seismic Performance of
Special Concentrically Braced Frames
Shawn M. Johnson
A thesis
submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Civil Engineering
University of Washington
2005
Program Authorized to Offer Degree:

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Abstract
Improved Seismic Performance of

Special Concentrically Braced Frames
Shawn M. Johnson
Chair of Supervisory Committee:

Professor Charles W. Roeder
Department of Civil and Envrionmental Engineering
Current design practices adapt a strength-based design approach for detailing gusset
plate connections in Special Concentrically Braced Frames (SCBF). This approach fails
to address the deformation demands placed on the system. Current code provisions also
lead to uneconomical connections with limited ductility. Five full-scale SCBFs were
tested to address some of these issues. These tests led to the proposal of an improved
design approach which increases system performance and reliability. This approach
uses balancing equations in order to improve the yielding hierarchy of the system.
Additionally, the proposed method helps to improve the economy and constructability
of the connection.
Graduate School
This is to certify that I have examined this copy of a master's thesis by
Shawn M. Johnson
and have found that it is complete and satisfactory in all respects,

and that any and all revisions required by the final
examining commitee have been made.
Committe Members:
_______________________________________________
Charles W. Roeder
_______________________________________________
Dawn E. Lehman
_______________________________________________
Greg R. Miller
Date: ____________________________
Acknowledgements
The author would like to give special thanks to the National Science Foundation for
funding the project and Nucor Yamoto Steel, Columbia Structural Tubing and
American Institute of Steel Construction for donating steel used in this project.
The author would also like to thank John Hooper and Cheryl Burwell of Magnusson
Klemensic Associates, Tim Fraser of Canron Western Constructors Ltd, Walterio Lopes
of Rutherford and Chekene, and Rafael Sabelli of Dasse Design Inc. for input in
developing the test matrix.
The author would like to acknowledge the faculty and staff at the Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering for their hard work in providing an excellent program.
Particularly professors Charles Roeder and Dawn Lehman for their input and
knowledge. Professor Greg Miller is also thanked for serving on the defense committee
reviewing this thesis.
Testing would not have been possible without the hard work from several graduate and
undergraduate students. Special thanks to all those involved that helped with
fabrication of the test setup and test specimens.
Finally the author acknowledges his wife, Taylor Johnson, for her love and support.
She has truly helped me in so many ways on so many levels. I love her so very much.
xv
Table of Contents
Page
List of Figures................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables.................................................................................................................. xiii
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background ..........................................................................1
1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................1
1.1 General..............................................................................................................1
1.2 Research Objectives..........................................................................................5
1.3 Overview of Report...........................................................................................6
Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................7
2.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................7
2.1 Brace Performance............................................................................................7
2.2 Gusset Plate Performance .................................................................................9
2.3 System Performance .......................................................................................11
2.4 Summary of Research .....................................................................................14
Chapter 3: Specimen Design and Selection......................................................................16
3.0 Introduction.....................................................................................................16
3.1 Design Philosophy ..........................................................................................17
3.2 Design Specifications......................................................................................17
3.3 Design Calculations ........................................................................................19
3.3.1 General...................................................................................................19
3.3.2 Member Selection ..................................................................................21
3.3.3 Brace-to-Gusset Plate Connection .........................................................22
3.3.4 Gusset Plate Design ...............................................................................24
3.3.5 Gusset Plate-to-Frame Joint Design.......................................................28
3.3.5.1 Interface Forces.............................................................................28
3.3.5.2 Gusset-to-Frame Weld Design......................................................30
3.3.5.3 Base Material ................................................................................32
3.3.5.4 Beam Web Strength ......................................................................32
3.3.6 Beam-to-Column (CJP) .........................................................................32
3.3.7 Beam-to-Column (Simple Shear) ..........................................................34
3.3.7.1 Initial Design.................................................................................34
3.3.7.2 Bolt Strength .................................................................................34
3.3.7.3 Bearing Strength ...........................................................................35
3.3.7.4 Shear Strength of the Plate............................................................35
3.3.7.5 Plate Bending ................................................................................36
3.3.7.6 Shear Plate Welds .........................................................................36
3.4 Discussion of Design Process .........................................................................37
3.4.1 Overview................................................................................................37
3.4.2 Performance-Based Design Approach...................................................38
3.5 Specimen Selection.........................................................................................40
3.5.1 Specimen Overview ...............................................................................40
3.5.2 HSS-01...................................................................................................45
3.5.3 HSS-02...................................................................................................45
i
3.5.4 HSS-03...................................................................................................49
3.5.5 HSS-04...................................................................................................49
3.5.6 HSS-05...................................................................................................49
3.6 Material ...........................................................................................................51
3.7 Frame Tolerances............................................................................................52
3.8 Fabrication ......................................................................................................53
Chapter 4: Experimental Setup.........................................................................................57
4.0 Introduction.....................................................................................................57
4.1 Test Setup Overview.......................................................................................57
4.1.1 Strong Wall and Strong Floor ................................................................61
4.1.2 Channel Assembly .................................................................................62
4.1.3 Load Beam .............................................................................................64
4.1.4 Actuator and Reaction Block .................................................................65
4.1.5 Out-of-Plane Restraints..........................................................................67
4.1.6 Column Axial Load System...................................................................68
4.1.7 Modifications to Test Assembly ............................................................70
4.2 Instrumentation ...............................................................................................72
4.3 Data Acquisition System.................................................................................77
4.4 Testing.............................................................................................................78
4.4.1 Pre-Test Preperation...............................................................................78
4.4.2 Test Procedures......................................................................................78
4.4.3 Loading Procedure .................................................................................79
Chapter 5: Experimental Results.....................................................................................82
5.0 Introduction.....................................................................................................82
5.1 Yield Mechanisms and Failure Modes ...........................................................83
5.1.1 SCBF Component Notation ...................................................................83
5.1.2 Typical Specimen Behavior...................................................................84
5.1.3 Performance State Notation ...................................................................90
5.1.4 Failure Types .........................................................................................96
5.1.5 Drift Ranges ...........................................................................................97
5.2 Data Operations ..............................................................................................98
5.2.1 Data File Adjustments............................................................................98
5.2.2 Calculations of Drift ..............................................................................98
5.3 HSS-01...........................................................................................................100
5.3.1 Specimen Overview .............................................................................100
5.3.2 Drift Range 1 (0.00% to -0.30%).........................................................103
5.3.3 Drift Range 2 (-0.30% to -0.85%) .......................................................103
5.3.4 Drift Range 3 (-0.85% to -1.50%) .......................................................104
5.3.5 Drift Range 4 (-1.50% to -2.00%) .......................................................107
5.4 HSS-02...........................................................................................................109
5.4.2 Drift Range 1 (0.00% to -0.30%).........................................................112
5.4.3 Drift Range 2 (-0.30% to -0.85%) .......................................................112
5.4.4 Drift Range 3 (-0.85% to -1.50%) .......................................................113
5.4.5 Drift Range 4 (-1.50% to -2.00%) .......................................................133
ii
5.4.6 Drift Range 5 (-2.00% to 3.10%).........................................................114
5.4.7 End of Test...........................................................................................117
5.5 HSS-03...........................................................................................................121
5.5.2 Actuator Surge .....................................................................................124
5.5.3 Drift Range 1 (0.00% to -0.30%).........................................................126
5.5.4 Drift Range 2 (-0.30% to -0.85%) .......................................................126
5.5.5 Drift Range 3 (-0.85% to -1.50%) .......................................................128
5.5.6 Drift Range 4 (-1.50% to -2.00%) .......................................................129
5.5.7 Drift Range 5 (-2.00% to 3.10%).........................................................131
5.5.8 End of Test...........................................................................................135
5.6 HSS-04...........................................................................................................138
5.6.2 Drift Range 1 (0.00% to -0.30%).........................................................141
5.6.3 Drift Range 2 (-0.30% to -0.85%) .......................................................141
5.6.4 Drift Range 3 (-0.85% to -1.50%) .......................................................144
5.6.5 Drift Range 4 (-1.50% to -2.00%) .......................................................146
5.6.6 Drift Range 5 (-2.00% to 3.10%).........................................................147
5.6.7 End of Test...........................................................................................150
5.7 HSS-05...........................................................................................................155
5.7.2 Drift Range 1 (0.00% to -0.30%).........................................................159
5.7.3 Drift Range 2 (-0.30% to -0.85%) .......................................................159
5.7.4 Drift Range 3 (-0.85% to -1.50%) .......................................................159
5.7.5 Drift Range 4 (-1.50% to -2.00%) .......................................................160
5.7.6 Drift Range 5 (-2.00% to 3.10%).........................................................162
5.7.7 End of Test...........................................................................................166
5.8 Performance State Comparison.....................................................................174
Chapter 6: Interpretation/Analysis of Results ................................................................179
6.0 Introduction...................................................................................................179
6.1 Calculations...................................................................................................179
6.2 Brace Behavior..............................................................................................189
6.2.1 Performance State Comparison............................................................189
6.2.2 Brace Axial Force ................................................................................190
6.2.3 Brace Bending Moment .......................................................................191
6.2.4 Brace Out-of-Plane Deformations .......................................................192
6.2.5 Brace Force-Elongation Response.......................................................194
6.3 Gusset Plate Behavior ...................................................................................195
6.3.2 Gusset Plate Rotations .........................................................................197
6.3.3 Gusset Plate Stresses............................................................................199
6.4 Beam and Column Behavior.........................................................................206
6.4.2 Beam and Column Moments ...............................................................208
6.4.3 Forces and Shears ................................................................................210
iii
6.5 Shear Tab Connections .................................................................................213
6.6 System Response ..........................................................................................215
Chapter 7: Implications for Design ................................................................................219
7.0 Introduction...................................................................................................219
7.1 Brace Behavior..............................................................................................219
7.2 Plate Behavior...............................................................................................220
7.3 Weld Behavior ..............................................................................................225
7.4 Shear Tab Connection Stiffness....................................................................226
Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................230
8.0 Introduction...................................................................................................230
8.1 Summary .......................................................................................................230
8.2 Conclusions...................................................................................................232
8.2.1 Clearance Requirement........................................................................232
8.2.2 Gusset Plate Thickness ........................................................................233
8.2.3 Gusset Plate Welds ..............................................................................233
8.3 Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................234
References ......................................................................................................................235
Appendix A: Specimen Design Drawings......................................................................239
A.1 General .........................................................................................................239
Appendix B: Specimen Design Examples......................................................................259
B.1 General ..........................................................................................................259
B.2 Example 1 (Straight 2t Clearance) ................................................................259
B.2.1 Member Selection ................................................................................259
B.2.2 Brace-to-Gusset Plate Connection .......................................................261
B.2.3 Gusset Plate Design...................................................................................263
B.2.4 Gusset Plate-to-Frame Connection Design ...............................................265
B.2.4.1 Gusset Interface Forces ....................................................................265
B.2.4.2 Gusset Plate-to-Frame Joint Design.................................................265
B.2.4.3 Base Material....................................................................................266
B.2.4.4 Beam Web Strength .........................................................................266
B.2.5 Beam-to-Column (CJP).............................................................................267
B.2.6 Beam-to-Column (Simple Shear)..............................................................268
B.2.6.1 Initial Design ....................................................................................268
B.2.6.2 Bolt Strength ....................................................................................268
B.2.6.3 Bearing Strength...............................................................................268
B.2.6.4 Shear Strength of Plate.....................................................................269
B.2.6.5 Plate Bending ...................................................................................269
B.2.6.6 Shear Plate Welds.............................................................................270
B.3 Example 2 (Elliptical Cleareance)................................................................270
B.3.1 Gusset Plate Design.............................................................................271
B.3.2 Gusset Plate-to-Frame Welds..............................................................272
Appendix C: Test Setup Details .....................................................................................273
C.1 General .........................................................................................................273
C.2 Test Setup Design Drawings ........................................................................273
C.3 Instrumentation.............................................................................................295
iv
Appendix D: Material Properties ...................................................................................310
Appendix E: Data Adjustments and Corrections ...........................................................311
E.1 Data Adjustments .........................................................................................311
E.1.1 Cleaning Data Files .............................................................................311
E.1.2 Joining Data Files ................................................................................312
E.2 Instrument Failure ........................................................................................313
E.3 Correcting Potentiometer Error ....................................................................314
v
List of Figures
Figure Page
1.1.1 Force-Drift Response for Single Brace..............................................................1

1.1.2 Force-Drift Response for Double Brace ............................................................2
1.1.3 Yield Mechanisms and Failure Modes of SCBF Components ..........................4
2.1.1 Test Schematic by Shaback and Brown (2003) .................................................8
2.1.2 Buckling Shape ................................................................................................9
2.2.1 Test Schematic by Nast et al (1999) ................................................................10
2.3.1 Test Schematic by Astaneh-Asl et al (1982.....................................................12
2.3.2 Test Schematic by Uriz (2004) ........................................................................14
3.0.1 Prototype Specimen .........................................................................................16
3.2.1 Clearance Requirement....................................................................................18
3.3.1 Brace-to-Gusset Plate Connection ...................................................................23
3.3.2 Block Shear Illustration ...................................................................................24
3.3.3 Whitmore Width ..............................................................................................25
3.3.4 Uniform Force Method ....................................................................................26
3.3.5 2t Clearance Dimensions .................................................................................27
3.3.6 UFM Resolved Forces .....................................................................................29
3.3.7 KISS Resolved Forces .....................................................................................30
3.3.8 Beam-to-Column Reactions.............................................................................33
3.3.9 Plastic Rotation Length....................................................................................34
3.3.10 Shear Distribution ............................................................................................36
3.4.1 Moment Rotation Comparison.........................................................................39
3.5.1 Typical Frame (HSS-01)..................................................................................41
3.5.2 Gusset Plate Connection Detail (HSS-01) .......................................................41
3.5.3 Column Stiffener..............................................................................................46
3.5.4 Elliptical Hinge Line Pattern and Stress Distribution......................................46
3.5.5 Elliptical Clearance Dimensions......................................................................47
3.7.1 Frame Tolerances.............................................................................................53
3.7.2 Weld Preparations............................................................................................55
3.7.3 Brace Slot for HSS-03 3/8-in. Gusset Plate .....................................................55
4.1.1 Test Setup Schematic.......................................................................................58
4.1.2 Test Setup Component Locations ....................................................................59
4.1.3 Test Setup Photograph .....................................................................................60
4.1.4 Force Transfer..................................................................................................61
4.1.5 Channel Assembly Cross-Section....................................................................63
4.1.6 Shear Transfer Connection ..............................................................................63
4.1.7 Load Beam Details...........................................................................................64
4.1.8 Actuator and Reaction Photograph ..................................................................66
4.1.9 Actuator and Reaction Block Detail ................................................................66
4.1.10 Out-of-Plane Restraints....................................................................................67
4.1.11 In-Plane Sliding Surfaces.................................................................................68
4.1.12 Axial Load System Schematic .........................................................................69
vi
4.1.13 Axial Load System...........................................................................................69
4.1.14 NE Out-of-Plane Support Modification (HSS-05) ..........................................71
4.2.1 Potentiometer Schematic .................................................................................73
4.2.2 Strain Guage Schematic...................................................................................74
4.2.3 Plate Strain Gauge Schematic..........................................................................75
4.4.1 Loading History ...............................................................................................80
4.4.2 Structural Analysis Model ...............................................................................81
5.1.1 SCBF Component Notation .............................................................................84
5.1.2 Locations of Gusset Plate Yielding..................................................................86
5.1.3 Brace Buckling Progression ............................................................................89
5.1.4 Brace Failure Progression ...............................................................................90
5.1.5 Gusset Plate Performance States......................................................................92
5.1.6 Beam and Column Performance States............................................................93
5.1.7 Brace Buckling States ......................................................................................94
5.1.8 Beam and Column Buckling States .................................................................95
5.1.9 Weld Damage...................................................................................................96
5.1.10 Brace Failure States .........................................................................................96
5.1.11 Weld Failure.....................................................................................................97
5.1.12 Bolt Shear.........................................................................................................97
5.2.1 Force-Drift Response Correction.....................................................................99
5.3.1 HSS-01 Drift Ratio History ..........................................................................102
5.3.2 HSS-01 Applied Force History......................................................................102
5.3.3 HSS-01 Force-Drift Response .......................................................................103
5.3.4 B1 East Column Base Flange Buckling (0.78% Drift) ..................................104
5.3.5 West Column Uplift (0.74% Drift) ................................................................105
5.3.6 NE Gusset Plate Weld Tearing (-1.04% Drift) ..............................................106
5.3.7 NE Gusset Plate Weld Cracking (-1.04% Drift) ...........................................106
5.3.8 B2 HSS-01 Brace Buckling (-1.64% Drift) ...................................................107
5.3.9 SW Gusset Plate Weld Tear 1 (-1.54% Drift)................................................108
5.3.10 SW Gusset Plate Weld Tear 2 (-1.54% Drift)................................................108
5.3.11 NE Gusset Plate Weld Tear (-1.54% Drift) ...................................................108
5.3.12 SW Gusset Plate Weld Failure (E.O.T) .........................................................109
5.4.4 Y2 Outer Flange of West Column (-1.85% Drift) .........................................114
5.4.5 B2 West Column Base Flange (-2.05% Drift) ...............................................115
5.4.6 Y2 NE Column Flange (-2.05% Drift) ..........................................................115
5.4.7 SE Shear Connection Rotation (-2.00%) .......................................................116
5.4.8 Y4 SW Gusset Plate (E.O.T) .........................................................................117
5.4.9 NEBG Gusset Plate Weld Crack (E.O.T.) .....................................................118
5.4.10 Y3 North Beam Flange (E.O.T).....................................................................118
5.4.11 Y2 North Beam Web (E.O.T) ........................................................................119
5.4.12 Y4 East Column Flange (E.O.T)....................................................................119
5.4.13 Y3 Outer Flange of West Column (E.O.T.)...................................................120
vii
5.4.14 Bolt Hole Elongation .....................................................................................120
5.5.4 Y3 Damage of NE Gusset Plate (Surge)........................................................124
5.5.5 Y1 Damage of NE Column (Surge) ..............................................................125
5.5.6 B1 SW Column Flange (Surge) .....................................................................126
5.5.7 Y3 SW Gusset Plate (-0.45%) ......................................................................127
5.5.8 Y1 SWBG (0.36%) ........................................................................................127
5.5.9 North Beam Buckling ...................................................................................128
5.5.10 North Beam Stiffeners ...................................................................................128
5.5.11 Y1 Outer Flange West Column (0.82%)........................................................129
5.5.12 Y3 NE Gusset Plate (-1.87%) ........................................................................130
5.5.13 Y2 Outer Flange West Column (-1.87%) ......................................................130
5.5.14 Y3 NE Inner Column Flange (-1.87%)..........................................................131
5.5.15 B1 NE Column Flange (1.24%).....................................................................131
5.5.16 Y1 South Beam (-2.21%)...............................................................................132
5.5.17 Y4 NE Gusset Plate (-2.24%) ........................................................................133
5.5.18 Y2 SW Beam Flange (-2.24%) ......................................................................133
5.5.19 Y3 Outer Flange West Column (1.39%)........................................................134
5.5.20 B1 South Beam Flange (-2.57%) ...................................................................135
5.5.21 Y4 SW Gusset Plate (E.O.T.) .......................................................................136
5.5.22 Y4 and B3 East Column Flange (E.O.T.) ......................................................136
5.5.23 B2 East Column Web (E.O.T.) ......................................................................137
5.5.24 Y4 Outer Flange West Column (E.O.T.) .......................................................137
5.5.25 Y3 Outer Flange East Column (E.O.T.) ........................................................138
5.6.4 Y1 SW Gusset Plate (-0.42%) .......................................................................142
5.6.5 Y3 NE Gusset Plate (0.44%) .........................................................................143
5.6.6 Y3 SW Gusset Plate (-0.64%) .......................................................................144
5.6.7 Y2 North Beam by Load Beam (-0.72%) ......................................................145
5.6.8 Y3 NE Column (0.85%) ................................................................................146
5.6.9 Y3 Outer Flange West Column (-2.20%) ......................................................147
5.6.10 Y5 SW Gusset Plate (E.O.T.) ........................................................................149
5.6.11 Y5 NE Gusset Plate (E.O.T.) .........................................................................149
5.6.12 B3 North Beam Final State (E.O.T.)..............................................................150
5.6.13 Y4 Column Flange (E.O.T.) ..........................................................................151
5.6.14 Y5 Outer Flange of West Column (E.O.T.)...................................................151
5.6.15 Y5 Outer Flange of East Column (E.O.T.) ....................................................152
5.6.16 B1 East Column (E.O.T.)...............................................................................152
5.6.17 B2 Inner Column Flange (E.O.T.) .................................................................153
5.6.18 Y5 Inner Flange East Column (E.O.T.) .........................................................153
5.6.19 B2 East Column Web (E.O.T.) ......................................................................153
viii
5.6.20 B1 and Y4 Inner Flange West Column (E.O.T.) ...........................................154
5.6.21 North Beam Bolt Hole Elongation (E.O.T.) ..................................................155
5.6.22 North Shear Plate (E.O.T.).............................................................................155
5.7.1 North Beam Bolt-Hole Pattern (HSS-05) .....................................................156
5.7.4 HSS-05 Force Drift Response........................................................................158
5.7.5 Y3 NE Gusset Plate (0.86%) .........................................................................160
5.7.6 Y3 Outer Flange North Beam (1.01%) ..........................................................161
5.7.7 Y4 SW Gusset Plate (E.O.T.) ........................................................................163
5.7.8 Gusset Plate Bending .....................................................................................164
5.7.9 Gusset Plate Rotation.....................................................................................164
5.7.10 SE Shear Connection Rotation (1.80%).........................................................165
5.7.11 Brace Fracture................................................................................................166
5.7.12 Y2 NE Gusset Plate (E.O.T.) .........................................................................167
5.7.13 SW Gusset Weld by Beam-Bottom (E.O.T.).................................................167
5.7.14 SW Gusset Weld by Beam-Top (E.O.T.) ......................................................168
5.7.15 SW Gusset Weld by Column-Bottom (E.O.T.) .............................................168
5.7.16 SW Gusset Weld by Column-Top (E.O.T.)...................................................168
5.7.17 NE Gusset Weld by Beam-Bottom (E.O.T.)..................................................169
5.7.18 NE Gusset Weld by Beam-Top (E.O.T.) .......................................................169
5.7.19 NE Gusset Weld by Column-Bottom (E.O.T.) ..............................................169
5.7.20 NE Gusset Weld by Beam (Top) ...................................................................170
5.7.21 Y3 and B1 Inner Flange East Column (E.O.T.).............................................170
5.7.22 Y2 Outer Flange East Column (E.O.T.) ........................................................171
5.7.23 B2 West Column (E.O.T.) .............................................................................171
5.7.24 B2 and Y3 South Beam (E.O.T.) ...................................................................172
5.7.25 North Beam by Load Beam (Final) ...............................................................172
5.7.26 NW Shear Connection (E.O.T.).....................................................................173
5.7.27 SE Shear Connection (E.O.T.).......................................................................173
5.7.28 NW Shear Connection Bolt (E.O.T.) .............................................................174
5.8.1 Force-Drift Response Envelopes ...................................................................174
5.8.2 Force-Drift Response (HSS-01).....................................................................175
6.1.1 Energy Dissipation Calculation .....................................................................180
6.1.2 Column Strain Gauges ...................................................................................181
6.1.3 Brace Out-of-Plane Measurement Schematic................................................184
6.1.4 Brace Out-of-Plane Measurement Correction ...............................................185
6.1.5 Brace Elongation Measurement.....................................................................185
6.1.8 Beam and Column Rotations .........................................................................188
ix
6.1.9 Gusset Plate Rotations ...................................................................................189
6.2.1 Brace Length..................................................................................................191
6.2.2 Brace Bending Moments (HSS-01) ...............................................................192
6.2.3 Brace Deformation vs. Drift Ratio.................................................................193
6.2.4 Brace Deformation Ratio vs. Drift Ratio .......................................................193
6.2.5 Brace Force-Elongation Response (HSS-03).................................................194
6.3.1 SW Gusset Plate Rotation .............................................................................198
6.3.2 SW Gusset Plate Rotation Ratio ....................................................................199
6.3.3 Gusset Plate Strain Gauge Pattern (HSS-01) .................................................200
6.3.4 Straight Line vs. Ellipse Comparison (Y-Stresses HSS-01)..........................201
6.3.5 Straight Line vs. Ellipse Comparison (X-Stresses HSS-01)..........................201
6.3.6 Y-Stresses Brace Compression (HSS-01)......................................................202
6.3.7 X-Stresses Brace Compression (HSS-01)......................................................203
6.3.8 Y-Stresses Brace Tension 1 (HSS-01)...........................................................203
6.3.9 Y-Stresses Brace Tension 2 (HSS-01)...........................................................204
6.3.10 X-Stresses Brace Tension 1 (HSS-01)...........................................................204
6.3.11 X-Stresses Brace Tension 2 (HSS-01)...........................................................205
6.3.12 Deformed Shape of the Frame .......................................................................206
6.4.1 North Beam Moments (HSS-04) ...................................................................209
6.4.2 South Beam Moments (HSS-04) ...................................................................210
6.4.3 West Column Axial Forces (HSS-04)............................................................211
6.4.4 East Column Axial Forces (HSS-04).............................................................211
6.4.5 North Beam Axial Forces (HSS-01) ..............................................................212
6.4.6 Percent Shear in Brace (HSS-03)...................................................................213
6.5.1 Moment Rotation Curve (SE Connection).....................................................214
6.5.2 Moment Rotation Curve (NW Connection)...................................................215
6.6.1 Energy Dissipation Comparison (HSS-05)....................................................217
7.2.1 Elliptical Clearance Dimensions....................................................................222
7.2.2 Gusset Plate Hinge Line.................................................................................223
7.4.1 SE Moment Rotation Envelopes....................................................................227
7.4.2 NW Moment Rotation Envelopes..................................................................227
7.4.3 Moment Rotation Best Fit Curve (HSS-03)...................................................228
A.1.1 Specimen HSS-01 ..........................................................................................240
A.1.2 HSS-01 Gusset Plate Detail ...........................................................................241
A.1.3 Specimen HSS-02 ..........................................................................................242
A.1.5 Specimen HSS-03 ..........................................................................................244
A.1.7 Specimen HSS-04 ..........................................................................................246
A.1.9 Specimen HSS-05 ..........................................................................................248
A.1.11 Standard Beam ...............................................................................................250
A.1.12 Beam End Details ..........................................................................................251
A.1.13 Test Setup Bolt Hole Patterns ........................................................................252
x
A.1.14 Typical East Column......................................................................................253
A.1.15 East Column Connection Details ...................................................................254
A.1.16 Typical West Column ....................................................................................255
A.1.17 West Column Connection Details..................................................................256
A.1.18 Shear Tab Type 1 ...........................................................................................257
A.1.19 Shear Tab Type 2 ...........................................................................................257
A.1.20 CJP Connection Detail...................................................................................258
A.1.21 Example Gusset Plate Detail..........................................................................258
C.2.1 Test Setup Plan View.....................................................................................274
C.2.2 Test Setup Elevation ......................................................................................275
C.2.3 Shear Connection Detail ................................................................................276
C.2.4 Channel End Plate..........................................................................................277
C.2.5 Channel End Plate Welds...............................................................................278
C.2.6 Shear Plate .....................................................................................................279
C.2.7 Channel Column Restraint.............................................................................280
C.2.8 Channel Assembly Components ....................................................................281
C.2.9 Reaction Block Conduit Pattern.....................................................................282
C.2.10 Reaction Block Reinforcement Schematic ....................................................283
C.2.11 Adapter Plate..................................................................................................284
C.2.12 Cap Plate ........................................................................................................285
C.2.13 Load Beam Assembly ....................................................................................286
C.2.14 Load Beam Detail ..........................................................................................287
C.2.15 Thickener Plate ..............................................................................................288
C.2.16 Load Beam Plates ..........................................................................................289
C.2.17 Shear Connection Shim Plate.........................................................................290
C.2.18 Load Beam Shim Plate...................................................................................290
C.2.19 Actuator Swivel Assembly ............................................................................291
C.2.20 Center Blade...................................................................................................292
C.2.21 Side Blade ......................................................................................................293
C.2.22 Spiral Washer.................................................................................................294
C.3.1 Gusset Plate Strain Gauge Configuration (HSS-01)......................................295
C.3.2 Strain Gauge Configuration ...........................................................................297
C.3.3 Alternate Brace Guage Configuration ...........................................................298
C.3.4 Shear Connection Rotations...........................................................................298
C.3.5 Shear Connection Devices .............................................................................299
C.3.6 Channel and Column Devices........................................................................299
C.3.7 Frame Corner Out-of-Plane Device ...............................................................299
C.3.8 Column Uplift Measurement Device .............................................................300
C.3.9 Frame Translation Device..............................................................................301
C.3.10 Load Beam Slip Device .................................................................................302
C.3.11 Reaction Block Devices.................................................................................302
C.3.12 Brace Out-of-Plane Measurement Devices....................................................303
C.3.13 Brace Elongation Measurement Device.........................................................304
C.3.14 Beam and Column Rotation Measurement Devices ......................................305
C.3.15 Column Rotation Device Example ................................................................305
xi
C.3.16 Brace Rotation Devices..................................................................................306
C.3.17 Brace Rotation Device Example....................................................................307
C.3.18 Gusset Plate Out-of-Plane Devices................................................................308
C.3.19 Gusset Plate Out-of-Plane Device Examples.................................................308
E.1.1 Uncorrected Device 29 HSS-02.....................................................................315
E.1.2 Corrected Device 29 HSS-02.........................................................................315
E.1.3 Device 29 HSS-03..........................................................................................316
xii
List of Tables
Table Page
1.1.1 Possible Performance Objectives for SCBFs.....................................................5

3.5.1 Specimen Summary 1 ......................................................................................43
3.5.2 Specimen Summary 2 ......................................................................................44
3.6.1 Steel Grades .....................................................................................................51
3.6.2 Steel Properties ................................................................................................51
5.0.1 Specimen Summary .........................................................................................83
5.1.1 Typical Yielding Mechanisms and Failure Modes ..........................................85
5.1.2 Performance State Notation .............................................................................90
5.1.3 Drift Ranges .....................................................................................................98
5.3.1 HSS-01 Peak Results .....................................................................................101
5.4.1 HSS-02 Peak Results .....................................................................................110
5.5.1 HSS-03 Peak Results .....................................................................................121
5.6.1 HSS-04 Peak Results .....................................................................................139
5.7.1 HSS-05 Peak Results .....................................................................................156
5.7.2 Weld Damage Summary ................................................................................157
5.8.1 Specimen Peak Value Comparison................................................................177
5.8.2 Performance State Comparison......................................................................178
6.2.1 Brace Performance State Comparison ...........................................................190
6.2.2 Maximum Brace Buckling Force Comparison ..............................................191
6.3.1 Gusset Plate Performance State Comparison.................................................196
6.3.2 Gusset Plate Figure Notation .........................................................................202
6.4.1 Beam and Column Performance Comparison................................................207
6.6.1 Peak Force and Drift Values ..........................................................................216
6.6.2 Percent of Total Energy Dissipated (HSS-05) ...............................................218
7.1.1 Buckling Parameters ......................................................................................219
7.1.2 Brace Yield Strength......................................................................................220
7.2.1 Gusset Plate Yielding.....................................................................................221
7.2.2 Yield Line Parameters....................................................................................224
7.2.3 Gusset Plate Stiffness.....................................................................................224
7.3.1 Weld Size b Factors .......................................................................................226
7.4.1 NW Shear Connection Stiffness Values ........................................................229
7.4.2 SE Shear Connection Stiffness Values ..........................................................229
C.3.1 Strain Gauge Locations..................................................................................298
C.3.2 Channel and Column Device Locations ........................................................301
C.3.3 Rotation Measurement Device Locations......................................................305
C.3.4 Brace Rotation Device Location....................................................................307
C.3.5 Gusset Plate Out-of-Plane Device Locations.................................................309
D.1.1 Material Properties - HSS-01.........................................................................310
xiii
E.2.1 Gauge Failure.................................................................................................313
E.2.2 Potentiometer Failure.....................................................................................314
xiv
1
Chapter 1
Introduction and Background
1.0 Introduction
This chapter provides an overview of the research project that will be presented in this
paper. Section 1.1 presents a brief background on special concentrically braced frames.
Section 1.2 describes the objectives of the research project. Section 1.3 presents an
overview of the information contained in this report.
1.1 General
Ground motions, such as those caused by strong earthquakes, induce lateral forces in
structures. The energy resulting from these internal forces must be dissipated. Several
seismic force-restraining systems can be employed to this end. An example of such a
system is a special concentrically braced frame (SCBF). SCBFs dissipate energy
through inelastic deformations of diagonal members and/or connecting elements. A
typical SCBF system is designed so that the bracing element will buckle out-of-plane
under large compressive forces and yield in tension under large tensile forces. Through
inelastic action such as this, energy is dissipated. Past research has shown that this
behavior leads to an unsymmetrical response as shown in Figure 1.1.1.
500
Horizontal
Force 400
300
200
100
0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
-100
Story Drift
-200
-300
Figure 1.1.1 - Force-Drift Response for Single Brace

2
Therefore, a typical SCBF system is designed using opposing pairs of braces. Using the
braces in pairs in this manner leads to more stable hysteretic behavior has shown in
Figure 1.1.2. Past research has also shown that the complete response of the system is
dependant on the behavior of the connections and framing members. Therefore, each
component of the entire SCBF system must be considered in the design in order to meet
the deformation demands and achieve the desired level of performance. Particularly,
the system is dependant on the ability of connections to tolerate large rotations, such as
those caused by out-of-plane motion as the brace buckles. Additionally, the
connections must support the full tensile and compressive capacity of the brace during
cyclic deformations. For this to take place, the connection must not buckle or fracture
prior to the brace elements developing their full resistance and ductility.
Horizontal
Force
Story Drift
Figure 1.1.2 - Force-Drift Response for Double Brace
In response to this need, current AISC design provisions require that adequate strength
in the connection be provided such that yielding and buckling of the brace can be
achieved. In essence, the provisions require that connection elements be "stronger" than
the brace. The strength of the connection is based on the ultimate force transferred to
the connection which is typically controlled by the maximum axial tensile strength of
the brace, which is calculated as:
Pu = RyFyAg (1.1)
3
where Ry is an overstrength factor accounting for the variability in material properties,
Fy is the yield strength of the steel and Ag is the cross-sectional area of the brace. This
force is assumed to be planar and the cyclic nature of the loading is not considered in
design. Current design provisions also fail to address the deformation demands placed
on system components. As a result the intended yielding hierarchy and seismic
performance are not guaranteed.
However, in order to satisfy the AISC requirement that the connection be stronger than
the brace, the common practice is to relate the brace force to the resistance of each
component such that
RyFyAg < Rn (1.2)
where Rn is the resistance of any given component in the system. This check is
applied to each possible failure condition. However, using a resistance factor in this
manner is irrational in that individual resistance factors, , tend to be unrelated and do
not provide a realistic estimate of the connection strength. (31) In addition to this the
current seismic design provisions frequently lead to large uneconomical connections as
will be discussed in more detail later in this report. As will be shown the design method
is based on ensuring that brace buckling and brace yielding occur, but system
performance after this is unclear.
In order to achieve more predictable and reliable performance of the system each yield
mechanism and failure mode of the system must be understood and balanced such that
yielding occurs in an optimal order. A design approach that helps ensure the desired
yielding and failure mechanisms occur in a logical order, will improve the system
performance by increasing the overall cyclic deformation capacity and thus, increase
overall energy dissipation capacity of the system. Figure 1.1.3 illustrates the yield
mechanisms and failure modes for a SCBF system. Permissible yielding mechanisms
include brace buckling and yielding as well as local yielding of the gusset plate. In the
4
case of a bolted connection bolt-hole elongation would also be considered permissible.
At larger deformations yielding of the beams and columns in the area of the gusset plate
connection is also permissible. Acceptable failure modes include fracture or tearing of
the brace. Unacceptable failure modes would then include buckling of the gusset plate
or fracture of the connection components.
Figure 1.1.3 - Yield Mechanisms and Failure Modes of SCBF Components
A performance-based design approach is proposed to improve the seismic design of

SCBF systems. This approach is similar to one was used to improve the seismic
performance of steel moment resisting frames. (29) To ensure that a target performance
level is met, a complete yielding hierarchy must be defined and acceptable yielding
mechanisms must be specified. Table 1.1.1 demonstrates a possible design scenario in a
performance-based design environment. Three levels of performance are indicated:
Immediate Occupancy (IO), Life Safety (LS), and Collapse Prevention (CP). As
illustrated in the figure structural damage increases with each performance level.
However, for each performance level connection failure must be prevented. A resulting
hierarchy is:
Brace Buckling < Brace Yielding < Connection Yielding < Brace Tearing
5
Table 1.1.1 - Possible Performance Objectives for SCBFs
Seldom Rare Maximum Considered
Essentially Significant
Inelastic Connection
Elastic Connection Yielding
Rotation
Limited Local Extensive Inelastic Large Inelastic

Yielding Post-Buckling Axial Strains
Deformation
A performance-based design approach will balance the yielding mechanisms to

maximize the seismic performance while restricting development of undesirable failure
modes such as buckling or fracture of the gusset plate. The result is a framing system in
which the energy dissipation and deformation capacities are increased relative to a
braced frame for which connection yielding is prevented. The balancing process is
completed by using factors, which are used to balance yielding mechanisms and
failure modes rather than just simply trying to prevent them altogether.
1.2 Research Objectives

The research presented in this paper was part of a National Science Foundation research
program (CMS-0301792, "Performance-Based Design of Concentrically Braced
Frames"). The complete program included the study of SCBF systems as well as
Buckling Restrained Braced Frames (BRBF) and involved:
Evaluation of current design and research models
Experimentally developing improved design of SCBF and BRBF systems to
meet a balanced design approach
Developing analytical, performance, and design models to support improved
design of both systems
6
The overall objective of the project was to support the development of improved
seismic design of SCBF and BRBF systems. This was done by adapting a performance
based design approach based on a design procedure that was developed as part of the
SAC Joint Venture Project for steel moment resisting frames. (29) Experimental testing
focused on improving the behavior and performance of the brace gusset plate
connections.
The research presented in this report made use of full-scale testing to evaluate the
performance of SCBF systems designed using current procedures. Other specimens
were used to experimentally study proposed improvements to the design procedure,
with an emphasis on achieving a desirable yielding hierarchy. Testing was also used to
develop robust and detailed experimental measurements and observations to validate
analytical models. As a final product of testing, initial design models for SCBF systems
were developed. A report covering the study of BRBF systems is discussed by
Christopulos. (11) Analytical studies were conducted by Gunnarson and Han Yoo. (19
and 20)
1.3 Overview of Report

This report is divided into five main sections. The first section (Chapter 2) provides an
overview of previous research studies directly related to this research project. The next
section (Chapters 3-4) describes the design and development of the experimental
program. Chapter 3 presents and discusses current design provisions. Specimen design
and selection are also presented. Chapter 4 provides information on the test setup and
the test program. The third main section (Chapters 5-6) discusses the experimental
findings. Chapter 5 discusses the performance of the five specimens tested for this
report. Analysis and interpretation of results is presented in Chapter 6. The fourth
section (Chapters 7-8) provides implications for design as well as conclusions and
recommendations for further research. The final section consists of appendices of more
detailed information on the specimens, test setup and material properties.
7
Chapter 2
Literature Review
2.0 Introduction
The behavior of braces and gusset plates used in SCBFs has been the topic of much
research. Many experiments have been conducted in order to understand and better
predict the failure modes and behavior of these components. The research can be
divided into 3 main categories: brace behavior, gusset plate behavior and system
behavior.
2.1 Brace Performance

Understanding the behavior of bracing members can help to achieve the best
performance of the brace possible. In addition, being able to predict the behavior of the
brace will also help to identify the demands that will be placed on the other components
of the SCBF system. Knowing the demands placed on the other components is
necessary in order to design the SCBF system properly.
Many tests have been conducted in order to understand the hysteretic behavior of steel
braces such as, Gugerli and Goel (18), Walpole (41), and Shaback and Brown (34). A
paper by Tremblay (39) provides a comprehensive summary of the work done in this
area. A series of tests completed using steel hollow structural sections (HSS) will be
presented in this paper due to the implications that the tests have in this research.
In the series of tests run by Shaback and Brown, nine square HSS sections with gusset
plate end connections were tested under cyclic loading. The objective of this study was
to investigate the behavior of full-scale HSS braces with typical end connections under
cyclic axial loading. Figure 2.1.1 shows a schematic of a typical specimen that was
tested by Shaback and Brown. As is shown, the end connections consisted of
8
rectangular gusset plates of various sizes. The brace was connected to the gusset plate
using a typical slotted connection.
Figure 2.1.1 - Test Schematic by Shaback and Brown (2003)
Specimen slenderness ratio was varied from 69 to 93. The width to thickness ratios
were varied from 11.9 to 15.1. The gusset plates were designed with free lengths that
ranged from 1.25 to 2.00 times the thickness of the plate.
The results from the tests show that the slenderness ratio of the brace is the most
important factor influencing the hysteretic behavior of the specimens. Results
demonstrated that by reducing the slenderness ratio of the brace hysteretic behavior was
improved. The tests also showed that the width to thickness ratio influences the fracture
life of the brace. That is, the lower the wall to thickness ratio the greater the fracture
life of the specimen. Other research shows that this relation holds true for any geometry
used for the bracing member.
Previous research has also shown that the behavior of bracing members is very similar
for any given brace geometry. (6, 18) Compressive loads will cause the bracing
member to buckle. As the brace is cycled from tension to compression three plastic
hinges will form in the system as shown in Figure 2.1.2.
9
Plastic Hinge
Figure 2.1.2 - Buckling Shape
The center hinge will typically form at the midpoint of the brace and the two end hinges
will either form at the brace ends or in the gusset plates. Hinging will continue and the
out-of-plane deformations will increase as drift levels increase. This action will cause
high local strains to form in the area of hinging. When the strains get large enough the
brace will begin to tear and eventually lead to fracture of the section. With HSS
sections, tearing will typically initiate in the corners of the brace and once initial tearing
begins complete fracture of the brace at the area of initial fracture will occur. The other
important aspect of this behavior is that the out-of-plane deformations of the brace place
large demands on the connections.
2.2 Gusset Plate Performance

Gusset plates are an important component in SCBFs. The forces from the brace are
transferred through the gusset plate to the framing elements. Thus any forces or
rotations in the brace must be accommodated by the gusset plate. Additionally, gusset
plates have been shown to be capable of dissipating energy through inelastic
deformations.
The cyclic behavior of gusset plates has been extensively researched. Many tests, such
as Nast et al (27), Rabinovitch and Cheng (28) and Grondin et al (17), have isolated the
gusset plate in order to better understand the behavior of gusset plates and the failure
modes.
10
In one particular study completed by Nast, Grondin and Cheng (27), gusset plate
behavior was studied using a full-scale gusset plate-brace member assembly. The
experimental study included four full-scale tests. The specimens were designed to
represent a corner gusset plate similar to those found in SCBFs as shown schematically
in Figure 2.2.1. The objectives of the study were to:
Observe the interaction between the gusset plate and brace
Compare experimental and finite element analysis results
Determine the effect of free edge stiffeners on gusset plate behavior
Investigate the ability of the gusset plate to dissipate energy.
Figure 2.2.1 - Test Schematic by Nast et al (1999)
The parameters that were adjusted in these tests were the length of the bracing member
(shown as L in the Figure 2.2.1) and the inclusion of free edge stiffeners on the gusset
plate. The length L was adjusted such that two tests were designed with the gusset plate
as the limiting member and two designed such that the brace was the limiting member.
11
The results from this study indicate that free edge stiffeners have little effect on the
behavior of the plate when the brace element is the limiting member of the system.
However, the tests indicate that the energy absorbed by the gusset plate-brace member
assembly is increased by the presence of a free edge stiffener. The study also concluded
that, the yield strength and buckling capacity of the plate can be predicted using the
methods proposed by Whitmore (42) and Thornton (38) respectively. The tests also
show that the out-of-plane deformation demands placed on the plate are much greater
when the brace element is the limiting member. This is due to the out-of-plane rotations
of the brace as it buckles.
2.3 System Performance

The experimental studies that will now be evaluated captured the effect of two gusset
plates in series with a bracing member as part of an SCBF system. The reports chosen
for this section involve testing of a both double angle members and rectangular HSS
sections for use as the brace element. Some of the main topics researched in these
studies include the behavior of the brace and gusset plate. The discussion in this section
will be limited to three test series. These include test conducted by Astaneh-Asl, Goel
and Hanson (6), Aslani and Goel (3), and testing that was being completed at the time
of this project at the University of California, Berkeley.
The first study, conducted by Astaneh-Asl et al., had the primary objective of evaluating
current deign procedures and modifying them to improve the overall ductility of the
assembly. A total of 17 specimens were tested. Eight specimens were designed to
buckle out-of-plane and nine to buckle in-plane of the gusset plate. A schematic of the
test setup is shown in Figure 2.3.1. The bracing element consisted of double angles, of
varying size, placed back-to-back. The gusset plate was tapered as shown in the figure
and connected at the beam only. The test frame consisted of a 4-Hinged reusable frame.
The gusset plate for each specimen was welded to a plate that was then bolted to the
frame as shown in the figure. The design variables for the out-of-plane buckling
12
specimens included: plate size, brace-to-gusset plate connection type (welded vs.
bolted), connection length, brace size and stitch spacing.
Figure 2.3.1 - Test Schematic by Astaneh-Asl et al (1982)
The results of the out-of-plane buckling tests showed that the behavior of the brace
closely matched the observed behavior as described in Section 2.1. Namely that 3
plastic hinges formed in the system: one in the midspan of the brace, and one in each
gusset plate. The large deformation demand caused by this hinging requires careful
detailing of the gusset plate in order to provide sufficient ductility of the plate. Failure
to do so led to fracture of the gusset plate in these tests. Therefore, one of the
conclusions of the report suggested providing a clearance of twice the thickness of the
gusset plate past the end of the brace. This free length of the gusset plate allows plastic
hinges to form in the gusset plate. Astaneh-Asl et al also conclude that the model
provided by AISC for predicting buckling of the brace provide close estimates to the
actual buckling load.
13
Another research study, conducted by Aslani and Goel (3), was a continuation of the
tests run by Astaneh-Asl et al. This study examined the effects of brace configuration
and end fixity on system performance. The same test frame was used in these studies as
shown in Figure 2.3.1. Bracing members also consisted of double angle members. The
objectives of this project were similar to those of the previous study. However, the test
variables included: stitch spacing, brace configuration, size of double angles and end
fixity.
This study reported that if sufficient stiffness in the gusset plate connection was
provided, plastic hinging was limited within the free length of the brace. The result of
this behavior was in an increase in the ultimate buckling capacity of the brace as well as
an increase in total energy dissipation. However, such details tend to lead to a less
economical connection. Additionally, if insufficient rigidity is provided this design
approach could be detrimental. In other words, if sufficient rigidity is not provided then
rotation will not be prevented. As a result, the increased rigidity of the plate will not
allow for repeated rotation. The end result is that the connection will behave in a more
brittle manner.
The final test involves testing that was being conducted during the course of this
project. (40) The test frame consisted of a 2 story frame as shown schematically in
Figure 2.3.2. The system was constructed using tapered gusset plates connected to both
the beam and columns using fillet welds. The bracing elements used were square HSS
section. The objectives of the test were to: improve understanding of the behavior of
typical SCBF systems, gather information to validate and improve computer models,
improve understanding of the interaction of the various components of the system and
assess the current design guidelines.
14
Figure 2.3.2 - Test Schematic by Uriz (2004)
This test showed similar results to the previous studies. In particular, the behavior of
the brace matched that of past studies. Large deformation demands were placed on the
gusset plate as a result of out-of-plane deformations of the brace. However, testing also
showed that large demands are placed on the beam and columns. Fracture of the
columns was observed at the beam column connection in the first story. Yielding was
also observed in columns at the joints.
2.4 Summary of Research

The research presented in this section showed that the yield mechanisms in a typical
SCBF system include yielding of the brace and gusset plate and, in the case of the test
conducted by Uriz, yielding of the framing elements. Testing also showed that buckling
can occur in the brace and gusset plate. Buckling of these elements was shown to lead
to system degradation and eventually failure due to fracture of the plate or brace.
Fracture of the gusset plate is also caused by out-of-plane deformations of the brace if
15
sufficient ductility is not provided. The fracture life of buckling elements has also been
shown to depend on the width to thickness ratio of the element. However, research has
not focused on balancing these yielding mechanisms and failure modes. Also, little is
understood about the interaction of the brace and gusset plate elements on the frame.
Input from local designers suggested that there was concern of how the frame really
behaves in a SCBF system. Information on this topic is limited. This is due to the fact
that the test frames used in past experiments were not designed to be representative of
the frames used in standard construction practices. Therefore, in order to examine the
behavior of the entire system and more fully understand the interaction between all
SCBF components, the specimens tested as part of this research study were designed
such that the framing elements were representative of a typical SCBF system. As a
result of this, specimen test frames were replaced for each test. Understanding the
behavior of the complete system was also important in developing a balanced design
approach. As will be discussed, it is necessary to understand the yield mechanisms and
failure modes of the entire system and what causes them. It is also important to
understand how the individual components interact with one another. By gaining a
better understanding of system behavior, it is then possible to develop a desirable
yielding hierarchy, which is one of the focuses of this research. Additionally, limited
testing of SCBF systems using rectangular gusset plates has been done. As mentioned,
past research of SCBF systems has mainly focused on the use of tapered gusset plates.
Therefore, to further understand the behavior of this gusset plate geometry, rectangular
gusset plates were used.
16
Chapter 3
Specimen Design and Selection
3.0 Introduction
This chapter presents a discussion on the current design practices. The first part of the
chapter discusses current code provisions that apply to SCBFs as set forth by the
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). A description of the entire design
process used to design the first specimen is then presented, which represents the
common design practice of local firms in the area. This is followed by a discussion of
the design process and an introduction into an alternative design philosophy. Finally a
discussion of the design and fabrication of the test specimens is presented. As will be
discussed the test frames represent a typical one-story one-bay SCBF system. As
shown in Figure 3.0.1, the test specimen is typical of what would be found in a lower
story of a low-rise structure.
Figure 3.0.1 Prototype Specimen

17
3.1 Design Philosophy
Care was taken during the design process to ensure that the design of the first specimen
would be consistent and representative of the current practice. Sources used during the
design of the test specimens include current code, SAC model building and technical
advice from local consulting firms. The final design was also based on testing
constraints.
Code and design recommendations used include: AISC LRFD Manual (1), AISC LRFD
Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings (2), and Steel TIPS (5, 12). Several
methods are discussed in these documents for designing the gusset plate connections.
The Uniform Force Method (UFM) was chosen for use in this project based on input
from local design firms as this method was the most widely used method.
3.2 Design Specifications

Many of the issues and findings of past research (6, 38, and 42) have either contributed
to or are dealt with in the current design specifications. Specifically, issues regarding
strength and ductility are addressed in the current code. In addition to this,
experimental studies show some of the inaccuracy present in theoretical models.
Current design specifications take many of these issues into account. Some of these
issues will now be discussed.
Local buckling is of major concern. Local buckling can lead to a reduction in fracture
life of a SCBF. AISC seismic provisions contain many provisions associated with the
detailing of structural elements intended for use in seismic regions. One section in this
document deals with local buckling issues. Width-to-thickness requirements are
prescribed that are more stringent than those found in the AISC LRFD manual (1).
These requirements are set forth to prevent severe local buckling which has been shown
to lead to fracture.
18
Another issue addressed in the seismic provisions is related to providing rotational
flexibility in the gusset plate. Out-of-plane flexibility is needed when out-of-plane
bending of the brace is expected. As mention previously, in the study conducted by
Astaneh-Asl et al, it was found that providing sufficient free length beyond the bracing
member helps to provide the desired ductility. The seismic provisions recommend a
value of twice the thickness of the gusset plate, as shown in Figure 3.2.1, which reflects
the recommended value by Astaneh-Asl et al. (5)
Figure 3.2.1 - Clearance Requirement
In addition to this, the Whitmore and Thornton methods are recommended for
determining the tensile and compressive capacity of the gusset plate respectively.
These methods are introduced in Section 3.3 and seem to be consistent with
experimental findings.
Past research has demonstrated that the available methods for predicting component
behavior are inaccurate. For example, in one study the (28) predicted values of gusset
plate buckling capacity varied from measured values by as much as 35%. Current
design practice has adapted the use of strength reduction factors to account for these
19
uncertainties. Strength reduction factors vary depending on what is being checked. For
example a strength reduction factor of 0.75 is used when detailing connections
according AISC LRFD standards. In addition to this, a recent report by Astaneh-Asl
also recommends increasing the expected value of the load by 1.1, or in other words,
reducing the design connection strength by about 68% compared to the AISC
recommended 75%. The use of reduction factors has also been adapted in design in an
effort to limit the inelastic action to the bracing element alone. These issues were
considered when designing the first test specimen. Many other checks were also
considered that apply to the design of the test specimens. The design procedure used to
detail the first specimen will now be discussed.
3.3 Design Calculations

3.3.1 General
Specimens were designed using AISC LRFD in conjunction with LRFD seismic
specifications and Steel TIPS. Traditionally, brace selection would be based on the
design lateral force calculated from a seismic analysis for a given structure. For testing
purposes the design was completed assuming that the maximum lateral force
corresponded with the maximum capacity of the actuator, since this resistance is typical
of the ultimate shear expected in a single bay of a moderate sized frame.
The UMF can be found in AISC LRFD in Section 13. In summary, the UFM involves
designing the gusset plate such that no moments are present in the connection. In order
to solve equilibrium forces a working point, W.P., is chosen as illustrated in Figure
3.3.4. The traditional UFM assumes the W.P. is located at the intersection of the beam
and column centerlines. The geometry of the connection is designed such that
equilibrium is satisfied without the presence of any moments, which will be illustrated
later in this chapter.
20
The UFM as illustrated in the AISC LRFD manual is a force design method, but the
AISC Seismic Design Provisions require that the connection be designed for the plastic
capacity of the brace. As a result, the exact design checks for the connection are
dependant on the members and connection types chosen. Therefore, in order to
understand the design process, as it applied to this project, it is important to first present
a brief discussion of the final frame design. The members chosen for the test specimens
were: W16x45 for the beams, W12x72 for the columns, HSS 5x5x3/8 for the brace and a
rectangular gusset plate. These sizes were selected using information from FEMA-
355C as well as technical advice.
FEMA-355C Appendix B (14) provides model buildings designs for steel moment
resisting frames (SMFR) of various building heights and floor plan geometries in
Seattle, Los Angeles and Boston. The design gravity loads from FEMA-355C were
investigated as a baseline design for SCBF frames as an aid in establishing the test
specimen for this research program. Additionally, design drawings that were
generously provided by local engineering consulting firms in the Seattle area. The
drawings provided were representative of typical design standards used for SCBFs.
Beam and column sizes from these design drawings were also used in the selection of
the beam and column sizes. Common member depths found from these resources were
12-in. for the columns and 16-in. for the beams. In selecting the final beam size, an
additional constraint in sizing the beam was introduced from testing requirements.
Although a lighter beam section would typically be used, a smaller size would have
buckled under the applied load without the additional support provided by a floor slab.
Therefore, a heavier section was chosen to accommodate the load while still providing
realistic flexibility in the frame.
The selection of the brace was mainly controlled by the capacity of the actuator. The
maximum applied force available was limited to 400 kips in compression and 350 kips
in tension. The 5x5x3/8 HSS tubular brace in the frame geometry selected earlier was
21
expected to develop their full tensile yield and full compressive buckling capacity with
these actuator force limits. The actuator was oriented so that its 400 kip capacity
developed tension in the brace. According to technical advice received, the sections
chosen for the test specimen were representative of a SCBF system that would be used
in the lower level of a low-rise structure or the upper story of a high-rise structure.
Finally, the shape of the gusset plate was chosen. It is common practice to either use a
rectangular gusset plate or to taper the plate. A rectangular gusset plate was chosen, as
this is a widely used connection detail and input from local fabricators suggests that it is
the preferred detail.
The gusset plate-to-frame connections and brace-to-gusset plate connections were made
using fillet welds. Beam-to-Column connections were designed to be rigid in the corner
of the frame adjacent the gusset plate. The beam was connected to the face of the
column flange in this location using Complete Joint Penetration (CJP) welds for the
beam flanges and web. The beam-to-column connections opposite the gusset plate were
bolted single plate shear connections. The next section covers the design methods and
equations used to generate the specimen details. For example design procedures see
Appendix B.
3.3.2 Member Selection

Member selection must be done in accordance with AISC seismic provisions.
According to these provisions, framing members used to resist lateral forces due to
ground motion must meet the ps limitations according to Table I-8-1. The table
specifies width to thickness requirements based on the type of member and lateral force
system used. This table limits the b/t ratio for rectangular HSS sections subjected to
axial compression to:
b E
0.64 x (3.1)
t Fy
22
The b/2t ratio of beam flanges is limited to:
b E
0.3 x (3.2)
2t Fy
Beam webs subject to combined axial compression and flexure must have an h/tw less
than:
h E x P

1.12 2.33 u (3.3)
tw Fy Py

for Pu/Py greater than 0.125. After selection of an initial member size that satisfied
these constraints, the member is checked to ensure adequate force capacity based on
yielding and buckling of the member.
3.3.3 Brace-to-Gusset Plate Connection

The next step in designing the system is to design the brace-to-gusset plate joint. The
brace was connected directly to the gusset plate by fillet welds with a slotted HSS
tubular brace, as shown in Figure 3.3.1. The weld size and connection length are
determined using AISC equation A-J2-1. The design force used for the welds is the
expected plastic capacity of the brace, which is 1.1RyFy. The value of Ry varies
according to the grade of steel used and is tabulated in AISC seismic provisions in
Table I-6-1.
23
Figure 3.3.1 - Brace-to-Gusset Plate Connection
As a final design consideration for this connection, fracture of the net section of the
brace is also checked. This is due to the fact that the brace is slotted and only connected
to the gusset plate on two sides of the brace. Fracture of the net section is checked
using AISC equation D1-2 where Ae is found according to Section B3 of the
specifications section in AISC. The capacity of the net section is checked against the
yield on gross of the brace increased by 10% in accordance with AISC Seismic
Provisions. With the brace slotted, the net section will typically not have adequate
resistance, according to the current code provisions. Therefore a "thickener" plate is
typically added to reinforce the net section of the brace at the slot. Plates are typically
added in pairs welded opposite each other on the brace around the end of the brace slot.
In this study the plates were welded, using fillet welds, to the unslotted surfaces of the
brace. Figure 3.3.1 illustrates an example of this detail.
For this check factors were taken to be 1.0, except when designing the welds that
connect the thickener plate to the brace. The welds were designed with taken to be
0.75. Sample calculations for the net section detail are provided in Appendix B.
24
3.3.4 Gusset Plate Design
The first step in designing the gusset plate is to determine the thickness of the gusset
plate. Four checks are necessary in determining the plate thickness: block shear,
yielding of the Whitmore section, fracture of the Whitmore section, and buckling.
Block shear is calculated according to AISC section J4.3 using equations J4-3a and
J43b. The values of Agt and Ant for a fillet welded tubular section are equal to the width
of the brace multiplied by the thickness of the plate. The values of Agv and Anv for a
tubular section are equal to twice the length of the brace connection times the thickness
of the plate. These areas are illustrated in Figure 3.3.2.
Figure 3.3.2 - Block Shear Illustration
Yielding and fracture of the Whitmore section are computed using the concept of the
"Whitmore width". The Whitmore width is an assumed width over which the load can
be treated as a uniform stress. The Whitmore width is found by extending lines at 30
degrees, relative to the brace, from the beginning of the brace -to-gusset plate
connection to the end of the connection as shown in Figure 3.3.3. The width is then the
distance between the two 30 degree lines at the end of the connection labeled Bw in the
25
figure. The design area is then found using Bw times the thickness of the plate. The
design strength for yielding and fracture of the Whitmore area is then found using AISC
equations D1-1 and D1-2 respectively. In these equations Ag and Ae were taken to be
the Whitmore area.
Figure 3.3.3 - Whitmore Width
Once the thickness of the plate is determined, the next step is to determine the geometry
of the gusset plate. As stated earlier, the gusset plates in this study were all designed to
be rectangular. The geometry of the plate, according to the UFM, is controlled by AISC
equation 11-1 which states that:
tan = eb tan ec (3.4)
Where
= distance from the face of the column flange to the centroid of the gusset-to-
beam connection
= distance from the face of the beam flange to the centroid of the gusset-to-
column connection
26
eb = one-half the depth of the beam
ec = one-half the depth of the column
Figure 3.3.4 - Uniform Force Method
The representations of , , eb, ec, and are identified in Figure 3.3.4. As can be seen
in the above equation there two unknowns: and . In order to define the plate size the
designer must choose a value of either or and then solve for the other parameter
using the above equation. Another constraint used to solve for the size of the plate is
the clearance requirement of "2t". This requirement was described earlier in this
chapter and is also described in section 13.1 of the AISC seismic provisions. With this
extra constraint the geometry of the plate is found using an iterative process. Figure
3.3.5 shows a schematic of the needed plate dimensions. Equations for the width and
height of the plate were generated from these dimensions:
1
Height = x'+ Lc + b sin ( ) + (s ) cos( ) (3.5)
2
2t p
Width = eb ec + (x') cos( ) + ( x') sin( ) tan ( 90 ) (3.6)
cos( )
27
Figure 3.3.5 - 2t Clearance Dimensions
As shown in the figure x' is the distance from the beam face to the end of the brace. Lc
is the length of the brace-to-gusset plate connection and b is the brace width. The
component s is shown as the distance from the side of the brace to the top plate edge.
This distance was taken to be 1-in. for all of the tests, which improved constructability.
The value x' is incremented programmatically until a value is found which satisfied all
three equations. Once the plate thickness and geometry are found, the buckling strength
of the gusset plate is also checked.
Several Methods have been proposed to determine the buckling capacity of the gusset
plate including Whitmore (42), Brown (9), Thornton (38) and Modified Thornton (10).
A report written by Cheng et al (10) reported that the Modified Thornton method was
the most accurate method in predicting the buckling capacity of rectangular gusset
plates subjected to axial loading. They also reported the Thornton method to be
conservative in estimating the buckling capacity of the gusset plate. Nevertheless, the
Thornton method appears to be most widely used and recommended. (1, 5) Thus, this
method was used in checking the buckling capacity of the gusset plates in this study.
The buckling capacity is calculated using the following expression:
28
Pcr = AgwFcr (3.7)
where, Fcr is the critical based upon the gusset plate slenderness and AISC comparison
load design provisions. Fcr was found using the following expressions which are based
on the Euler buckling equation:
2
For 1.5 Fcr = 0.658 Fy (3.8)
0.877
For > 1.5 Fcr = Fy (3.9)
2
Kl 12 F y
where = (3.10)
t p 29000
In the equation for , several values of K have been recommended from various
research studies, ranging from 0.5 to 1.2. However, AISC LRFD recommends a value
of 0.5 for rectangular gusset plates that are supported on two edges. The value l is
found as either the average of l1, l2 and l3 or is the maximum perpendicular distance
from the Whitmore section to the interior corner of the gusset plate. Both of these are
illustrated in Figure 3.3.3. Once the gusset plate size and thickness are determined the
gusset plate-to-frame joint is designed.
3.3.5 Gusset Plate-to-Frame Joint Design

3.3.5.1 Interface Forces
The first step in sizing the welds for this joint is to determine the forces at the
beam/column interface. There are several design methods for finding the interface
forces each of which is based on resolving the brace force using equilibrium.
According to the UFM (as described in AISC Section 13), the brace force is resolved
into vertical and horizontal components at the beam and the column interface. The
forces are computed using equilibrium equations as found in AISC Section 13. The
equations are provided below and illustrated in Figure 3.3.6.
29
ec
Vuc = Pu H uc = Pu (3.11-3.12)
r r
eb
Vub = Pu Hb = Pu (3.13-3.14)
r r
where
r= ( + ec )2 + ( + eb )2 (3.15)
Pu
Vuc
Huc
Hub
Vub
Figure 3.3.6 - UFM Resolved Forces
Another widely used method, commonly referred to as the "KISS" method, involves
resolving the brace forces into a horizontal force at the beam and a vertical force at the
column. To satisfy equilibrium a moment must be present and is calculated by
multiplying the vertical and horizontal forces by ec and eb respectively. The forces
found using this method are illustrated in Figure 3.3.7. The first method was used to
calculate the interface forces for the design of the specimens in this project. Once the
interface forces are obtained, using either method, the weld sizes must then be
determined.
30
Pu
Vu
Muc
Mub
Hu
Figure 3.3.7 - KISS Resolved Forces
3.3.5.2 Gusset-to-Frame Weld Design

Several methods are available to size the welds, each of which leads to varying levels of
conservatism. One method, recommended in AISC Section 13, uses the vertical and
horizontal interface forces in conjunction with AISC Table 8-5 to size the welds. First,
resultant forces, Puc and Pub, are found using the two components of force and are as
follows for the column forces:
Pu = (H uc )2 + (Vuc )2 (3.16)
The angle at which this resultant force acts is found using:
H uc
= tan 1 (3.17)
Vuc
The calculated angle will typically not coincide with a tabulated value. Therefore,
either linear interpolation can be used in conjunction with tabulated values in Table 8-5
or the angle can be conservatively rounded down the nearest 15 degree increment.
Assuming that the forces acts at the interface of the welds the value a, in Table 8-5, can
31
be taken as zero and a tabulated value of C is then obtained. The minimum weld size is
then calculated using the provided equation in the table which is:
1.4 Pu
Dmin = (3.18)
CC1l
where Dmin is the number of sixteenths-of-an-inch in the fillet weld size, l is the length
of the joint and C1 is a tabulated coefficient. The 40 percent increase of the design force
Pu is recommended in AISC Section 13. The increase of the force is to ensure adequate
force redistribution in the weld group.
Another method considered was recommended through technical advice and is the most
conservative of the methods that will be presented in this paper. This method involves
sizing the welds based on the forces as were found using the "KISS" method. First, a
resultant applied stress is found from the applied force and moment as follows:
Rn = (Rnv )2 + (Rnt )2 (3.19)
where
P
Rnv = (3.20)
A
and
M
Rnt = (3.21)
S
The area A is taken as two unit width fillet welds the length of the joint. The section
modulus S is taken as:
2(1)l 2
S= (3.22)
6
32
The weld is then sized using:
1.1Rn = 0.75t weld (0.6 )(0.707 )Fexx (3.23)
3.3.5.3 Base Material

The next step is to ensure that the beam and column flanges have sufficient strength to
transfer the stresses that are applied from the gusset plate. This is done in accordance
with AISC Section J5. The check involves computing the shear capacity of the flanges
using the following equations:
Rn = 2[t f lFy ] (3.24)
Rn = 2[ (0.6)(0.85)t f lFu ] (3.25)
In this equation, tf it the thickness of the flange, l is the length of the gusset plate joint
and is 0.9 for yielding and 0.75 for rupture according to AISC Chapter 2.
3.3.5.4 Beam Web Strength

Due to the concentration of force applied from the gusset plate to the beam and column
web, checks must also be made to ensure adequate strength of the web. The design
checks include: web local yielding and web crippling. Both of these checks are done in
accordance with Chapter K sections 3 and 4 of AISC. In both cases, the parameter N is
taken to be the length of the gusset plate joint.
3.3.6 Beam-to-Column (CJP)

The next step in designing the SCBF system is to design the beam-to-column
connection adjacent to the gusset plate. This connection is designed using the vertical
and horizontal force that was resolved from the brace force as shown in Figure 3.3.8
below. Using equilibrium, reaction forces R1, R2 and R3 are found as follows:
33
Vub
Hub Hub
R1
R3
Vub Mub
R2
Figure 3.3.8 - Beam-to-Column Reactions
H ub (d b ) M ub
R1 = (3.26)
db
and
R2 = Hub - R1, R3 = Vub (3.27-3.28)
where Mub is equal to Vub multiplied by .
Although a CJP connection is not required by AISC, as a result of the magnitude of R1,
R2 and R3 the connection was detailed as a CJP connection for the specimens. Due to
the fact that a CJP connection was used, the capacity of the beam was then checked
assuming that the nominal tensile capacity was equal to the tensile strength of the beam
flanges and the nominal shear capacity of the beam web using:
Rn = 0.9t f Fy b f
(3.29)
for the beam flanges
Rn = 0.75(0.6 )t w Fy l (3.30)
for the beam web

34
3.3.7 Beam-to-Column (Simple Shear)
3.3.7.1 Initial Design
The last connection detailed is the beam-to-column connection opposite the gusset
plate. This was designed as a simple shear connection, which is common design
practice. The shear force used to design the connection was related to the plastic
moment capacity of the beam. This is not specified by AISC but is commonly done by
local design firms. The shear force was found using:
1.5M p 1.5F y Z b
V= = (3.31)
lb lb
where the length l is taken to the length as shown in Figure 3.3.9.
lb
Figure 3.3.9 - Plastic Rotation Length
Then, using this shear force, the initial plate size and bolt size is found using Table 10-9
and Table 10-1 in AISC. Once the initial sizes are found, each limit state is then
checked to ensure adequacy.
3.3.7.2 Bolt Strength

The strength of the bolts is checked for bolts subject to single shear. Then using AISC
Table 7-10 the bolt strength can be found for a single bolt. All bolts were designed as
A490 threads excluded for this project.
35
3.3.7.3 Bearing Strength
Bearing strength of the plate and beam web is checked next. This check is done in
accordance to Section J3.10 in the specification section of AISC. For this check
deformation at the bolt hole was considered. In addition to this the shear plate was
assumed to be A572 steel.
3.3.7.4 Shear Strength of the Plate

The elastic yield strength of the plate is checked in accordance with Section J4.1 of the
specifications section of AISC. For this check the net area of the plate is taken as the
gross area of the plate, in the direction of shearing, minus the area of the bolt holes.
Next the shear yielding strength of the plate is checked using:
2
Rn = (0.6) t p lF y (3.32)
3
In this equation the value is 0.75 according to AISC. The quantity 2/3 is a result of
assuming a parabolic shear stress distribution as shown in Figure 3.3.10. Assuming this
distribution:
3
ave = 0.6 F y (3.33)
2
therefore
2
ave = 0.6 Fy (3.34)
3
36
max
Figure 3.3.10 - Shear Distribution
The final shear check of the plate is to check the block shear rupture strength and is
done in accordance with AISC Section J4.3.
3.3.7.5 Plate Bending

The bending capacity of the plate is checked next. For this check, the moment capacity
of the plate, based on the section modulus of the plate, is checked against the applied
moment, caused by the applied shear force at a distance, e, away from the column face.
Therefore, the check is as follows:
Rn V (e ) (3.35)
where
t p l 2p
Rn = Fy (3.36)
6
In this equation, is 0.9, tp is the thickness of the plate and l is the height of the plate.
3.3.7.6 Shear Plate Welds

As a final check, the capacities of the fillet welds that connect the shear plate to the
column face are checked. This check is done using Table 8-5 in AISC assuming that
the applied load acts at an angle of zero degrees. Geometry of the shear connection is
37
used to find values of a and k as defined in Table 8-5. Linear interpolation, which is
allowed by AISC, is then used to find a value of C.
3.4 Discussion of Design Process

3.4.1 Overview
The intent of this design process is to ensure that a SCBF system will be sufficiently
ductile to prevent sudden failure while providing adequate strength to resist lateral
forces. However, some of the current recommended design criteria seem to introduce
additional issues. Specifically, the recommended free length of twice the thickness of
the gusset plate and the connection strength reduction factors can lead to uneconomical
or impractical gusset plate designs. In addition to this, the current design method mixes
yielding mechanisms and failure modes and does not provide any measure of the
sequence of yielding. This is due to the fact that the current design criteria adapt a
strength-based design approach. With this approach, the factored resistance of each
element in the system is compared against an ultimate design force, which is assumed to
be planar. This presumes that yielding and failure of each system component, with the
exception of the brace, is avoided. However, the ability of the system to dissipate
energy is based on inelastic deformations in the system. The current design procedures
are based on planar forces and do not specifically address the deformation demands
placed on the system components.
In order to increase the maximum energy dissipation capacity of an SCBF system,

undesirable failure modes of individual components, such as early onset of fracture,
must be avoided. However, this is only one part of the problem. For the system to
behave in a desirable manner it must also be sufficiently ductile to accommodate the
demands caused by ground motions. Previous studies (13, 29) have shown that this
behavior can be achieved by balancing yielding mechanisms and failure modes in a
hierarchal order. This balancing process leads to more reliable, predictable system with
greater ductility and therefore, improved performance.
38
3.4.2 Performance-Based Design Approach
Good response of buildings to earthquake ground motion is achieved by improving the
ductility of the system. Poor performance of Steel Moment Resisting Frames (SMRF)
during the Northridge earthquake led to the SAC Steel Project. This project was started
to investigate and find solutions to the poor behavior of SMRF connections. One of the
teams involved, the Connection Performance Team, was responsible for conducting
research to evaluate and improve connection performance. SMRF connections were
evaluated starting with an initial understanding of each yield mechanism and failure
mode for each connection type. Research focused primarily on predicting and
controlling yield mechanisms and failure modes in such a way as to control the order in
which each mechanism occurred. This is done using a combination of three methods:
Complete evaluation of connection performance
Design connections with a ductile fuse
Strengthen or improve connection elements with poor or
unknown behavior
In order to achieve the desired result the design methods were reevaluated and refined
to include this ideology. As part of this the use of a factor was adopted as a substitute
to the strength reduction factor . The factor is used to balance the yield mechanisms,
and varies depending upon the yield mechanism or failure mode it is being applied.
Like the resistance factor , the factor is less than 1.0. However, is based on
balancing the performance of expected yielding mechanisms, where is based upon
strength in terms of statistically extreme events. (29) Thus, the intent of the beta factor
is to ensure that the desired yield mechanism occurs first followed by less desirable
yield mechanisms. The factor is used to produce balancing equations. Balancing
equations lead to a design in which the progression of yield mechanisms occurs in a
desired order and that undesirable failure modes are prevented.
Increased ductility was achieved in SMRFs by allowing multiple mechanisms to

contribute to energy dissipation, and by balancing the resistance associated with yield
39
mechanisms to assure that significant inelastic deformation was achieved before
undesirable failure modes occurred. (29) Undesirable failure modes were frequently
controlled by improved quality control measures and improved connection details.
Figure 3.4.1shows a comparison of moment rotation curves for a Welded-Flange-
Welded-Web connection. Figure 3.4.1a shows a typical pre-Northridge SMRF
connection where ductility is limited. Figure 3.4.1b shows the behavior of the
connection using the balancing approach. These plots demonstrate that ductility is
greatly improved by using a design approach in which yield mechanisms are balanced.
(a) (b)
Figure 3.4.1 - Moment Rotation Comparison
The current design method for SCBFs does not provide a yielding hierarchy. This
suggests that the response of SCBF systems may be improved by adapting a balance
procedure, just as the performance of SMRF was improved. A balance procedure could
help to improve the performance of the gusset plate connections, which could then lead
to increased ductility in the system as well as increased reliability. Therefore, the main
focus of this research was to address some of the issues that lead to uneconomical
connections while adapting a balance approach to the design of SCBFs in an effort to
improve the seismic performance of these systems. This ideology was used in
designing specimens HSS-02 through HSS-05.
40
3.5 Specimen Selection
3.5.1 Specimen Overview
The experimental program was divided into two types of specimens: buckling braces
and buckling restrained braces. This study will focus on the testing of SCBF systems.
Research covering buckling restrained braces is covered in a separate document.
Testing consisted of five full-scale specimens using square HSS tube sections for the
bracing member. Specimens represented a typical SCBF frame found in an upper story
of a high rise building or a lower story of a low rise building. All braces were designed
to buckle out-of-plane. This is a result of using a brace with the same moment of inertia
about both axes, but with different connection stiffness for in-plane and out-of-plane
buckling. Due to the geometry of the gusset plate the end restraints are different for
buckling in plane than for out-of-plane. That is, out-of-plane bending is close to a
pinned condition where as in-plane bending is closer to a fixed condition. The bracing
element of the SCBF was connected to the frame elements using rectangular gusset
plates that were welded directly to the frame elements using fillet welds. Beam-to-
column connections were designed using provisions for rigid connections at the gusset
plate connection and pinned connections at corners opposite the gusset plate.
Geometric properties of a typical specimen are shown in Figures 3.5.1 and 3.5.2.
41
Figure 3.5.1 - Typical Frame (HSS-01)
Figure 3.5.2 - Gusset Plate Connection Detail (HSS-01)

42
As stated, the intent of the first test specimen was to create, as closely as possible, a
SCBF system that was representative of the current design practices in the area. To this
end, several meetings were held with designers of local firms. Discussions included
common design practice as well as common issues faced when detailing SCBFs. Input
was used from these discussions to develop the design of the first test specimen. In
addition, these discussions helped to generate the test matrix of the project. Specimen
selection was based on addressing key issues that designers face when detailing SCBF
systems. These issues included: difficulties satisfying current clearance requirements,
problems with connection resistance factors, and uncertainties in sizing gusset plate-to-
frame joint welds.
Many designers are unclear in how to satisfy the "2t" clearance requirements.
Interpretations of this requirement often lead to large uneconomical gusset plates.
Current resistance factors lead to large rigid connections as well as thick gusset plates.
Finally, recommended methods for sizing gusset plate welds often lead to large weld
sizes with little indication as to how the weld will perform.
In addressing these key issues, emphasis was placed on improving the seismic
performance of the system as well as the economy. Important properties of the five test
specimens are summarized in Tables 3.5.1 and 3.5.2 below. Table 3.5.1 summarized
the key components that were changed from one specimen to another and include:
brace-to-gusset plate joint length, weld sizes, gusset plate shape and thickness. Table
3.5.2 provides a description of the purpose of each specimen as well as a simplified
detail of the gusset plate connection. For detailed design drawings of each specimen
please refer to Appendix A. It is important to note that Table 3.1 lists the plate
thicknesses used in design calculations. However, as the material tests in Appendix D
indicate, the plate thicknesses of HSS-03 and HSS-04 were larger than 3/8-in. The
actual thicknesses are also provided in Table 3.5.1. Another important note is that
43
although the thickness of the plates did not vary by much the yield strengths were
significantly different. The yield strengths are provided in Table 3.5.4.
Table 3.5.1 - Specimen Summary 1

44
Table 3.5.2 - Specimen Summary 2
45
3.5.2 HSS-01
The first specimen, HSS-01, was designed in accordance to current design practice and
was used as a reference specimen for all subsequent specimens. However, current
design practices are open to interpretations that could result in variations of design. For
example, connection weld sizes for the gusset plates can be sized using several
acceptable methods that lead to varying weld sizes. Gusset plate size can also be varied
as long as design checks are met. Technical advice was obtained from experienced
designers. The gusset plate of the first specimen was sized in accordance with the "2t"
clearance requirement as well as equilibrium equations from the UFM.
3.5.3 HSS-02
The goal of testing specimen HSS-02 was to reevaluate the use of the "2t" clearance
requirement which often leads to uneconomical gusset plate sizes. The gusset plate for
the second specimen, HSS-02, was designed using a new definition of the clearance
requirement. This allowed for a smaller, more economical gusset plate. In addition, a
larger weld size was used to connect the gusset plate to the frame, because of cracking
noted in specimen HSS-01. In addition to this, column stiffeners were added to this
specimen at the base of each column. This modification was made to prevent local
buckling of the flanges at the column base that was observed in specimen HSS-01.
Figure 3.5.3 shows an example of the added stiffener. This addition was included in
specimens HSS-02 through HSS-05.
46
Stiffener
Figure 3.5.3 - Column Stiffener
The proposed clearance requirement utilized an "elliptical" clearance band. The

concept of this method was developed in this project because of observed performance
of rectangular gusset plates in SCBF and BRBF systems and finite element analysis
results as depicted in Figure 3.5.4. Testing of BRBF systems have showed that some
gusset plates tend to form elliptical hinge lines as shown in Figure 3.5.4a. In addition to
this observed behavior, results from finite element analysis done by other researchers
suggest an elliptical stress distribution is possible as shown in Figure 3.5.4b. Therefore,
to take advantage of this behavior, the gusset plate was designed to hinge along a
similar pattern.
(a) (b)
Figure 3.5.4 - Elliptical Hinge Line Pattern and Stress Distribution
47
Once the brace-to-gusset plate connection is designed and the thickness of the plate
determined, the geometry of the plate is found using an elliptical line that has vertices
based on the size of the gusset plate. The elliptical band employed an initial clearance
N(tp) of 6(tp) as shown in Figure 3.5.5. The ellipse is offset from the beam and column
faces a distance of N(tp), where N is the number of plate thicknesses that the elliptical
line is to be offset. The resulting dimensions of the gusset plate are then defined by:
1
2
Height
Width = 2 tan ( ) + eb tan ( ) e c (3.38)
2
With the equation of an ellipse being:
x2 y2
+ 1= 0 (3.39)
a2 b2
Figure 3.5.5 - Elliptical Clearance Dimensions

48
where a is the width of the plate minus N(tp) of the plate and b is the height of the plate
minus N(tp) of the plate. For a gusset plate orientation as shown in Figure 3.5.5, the
part of the ellipse that is of interest is the lower left half of the ellipse centered about the
upper right corner of the gusset plate. The position of interest on the ellipse is indicated
in Figure 3.5.5 by the vertical distance y and the horizontal distance x. Therefore,
according to the equation of the ellipse the vertical distance should then be:
x2 2
y = 1 2 b (3.40)
a
where x is equal:
x = [x' cos( ) + (eb ec )] Width (3.41)
In order to solve for the dimensions of the gusset plate, the value x' was
programmatically incremented until the following equation was satisfied:
y + (x') sin ( ) Height = 0 (3.42)
Once the value of x' is solved for the gusset plate dimensions are known.
The method used for sizing gusset plate welds for specimen HSS-02 was more
conservative than using equations 3.16 through 3.18 but less conservative than the using
equations 3.19 through 3.23. This method was developed by the author and involves
summing the horizontal and vertical components of the interface forces and then
designing the weld using AISC equation A-J2-1 assuming that the fillet weld acts in
shear. This is a conservative assumption, because the stresses transferred from the
gusset plate to the welds are not accurately known. Lesik et al. (25) showed that the
performance of fillet welds depends on the angle at which stress is applied to the weld.
Testing showed that the weld is stronger with less ductility when the stress is applied
perpendicular to the length of the weld and weaker with greater ductility when the stress
is applied as shear. Therefore, assuming that the entire applied load acts in shear is a
49
lower bound solution based on the assumed force distribution. The weld design was
based upon the expected yield force of the brace as for other design calculations. This
method was used to size the welds for specimens HSS-02 through HSS-04, which (as
will be discussed in later chapters) proved to be adequate.
3.5.4 HSS-03
Yielding of the gusset plate in HSS-02 was limited. Therefore, in order to increase the
likelihood of yielding for HSS-03, all properties except the gusset plate thickness were
the same as for HSS-02. Using a different factor allowed for a thinner gusset plate
that possessed a theoretical yield capacity closer to that of the yield capacity of the
brace. The purpose of this specimen was to evaluate the effect of yielding in the gusset
plate on the cyclic behavior of the system and to further develop a yielding hierarchy
for SCBFs.
3.5.5 HSS-04
The purpose of HSS-04 was to further develop the proposed yielding hierarchy by:
evaluating the effect of increased yielding of the gusset plate on the cyclic behavior of
the system, and the effect of a reduced buckling capacity in the gusset plate. The fourth
specimen, HSS-04, was designed using a slight variation of the "elliptical" clearance
requirement as well as a smaller brace-to-gusset plate joint length. The ellipse
clearance requirement was increased to 8tp, because this improved constructability of
the test frame and slightly decreased buckling capacity of the gusset plate. By
decreasing the length of the brace-to-gusset plate connection the Whitmore width was
reduced, which increased the likelihood of gusset plate yielding.
3.5.6 HSS-05
Specimen HSS-05 was used to test a more rational design approach for sizing these
welds. The design of specimen HSS-05 was the same as HSS-03 except for the weld
50
sizes that were used to connect the gusset plate to the frame. As discussed previously,
there are many methods to size the welds used in the gusset plate-to-frame joint. The
weld design approach was a plastic design proposed by the author. This method is
attractive because it does not rely on choosing how the forces are distributed from the
gusset plate to the frame and it is potentially more economical than the methods used
for specimens HSS-02 through HSS-04. The welds are sized according to the thickness
and yield strength of the gusset plate. Research has shown that the strength of fillet
welds is a function of the load angle. (25) Using equation A-J2-1 of AISC and
assuming that the stress applied to the weld is equal to the yield capacity of the gusset
plate, the design equation for a pair of fillet welds then becomes:
0.55R y F y t (2 )Fexx (0.6)(0.707 )w (3.43)
where Fy is the yield strength of the gusset plate and t is the thickness. Fexx is the
strength of the weld electrode and w is the size of the weld. By making the assumption
that the gusset plate yields in tension the equation becomes:
R y F y t (2)Fexx (0.9 )(0.707 )w (3.44)
The average weld size that would result from these two equations is then:
R y Fy t
w= (3.45)
1.4 Fexx
where is a factor based on a desired yielding hierarchy. The welds were then sized
using a factor of 0.8 and the actual measured plate thickness. (3/8-in.)
51
3.6 Material
Each specimen contained both welded and bolted connections. All welded connections
were made using 5/64" core shield 8 - E71T - 9 Flux Cored ESAB weld wire. A490 3/4"
diameter bolts were used to connect framing elements to each other. A490 1" diameter
bolts were used to connect the frame to the test setup. All bolted connections were
snug-tight bearing connections (in accordance with RCSC Specifications) with threads
excluded for the shear plane.
The grade of steel used for the specimen elements is shown in Table 3.6.1.
Table 3.6.1 - Steel Grades
Theoretical values of Fy and Fu were used for design calculations according to the grade
of steel. Theoretical values for member geometries were also used in calculations for
the design of the specimens. However, tension tests were completed for the beams,
columns, braces and gusset plates to determine the actual properties of the steel. The
yield strengths and ultimate strengths are shown in Table 3.6.2. All values shown in the
table are given in units of ksi. The complete results of material testing are provided in
Appendix D.
Table 3.6.2 - Steel Properties

52
3.7 Frame Tolerances
Frame tolerances were established for the specimens to ensure consistency and proper
fit-up to the test setup. Tolerances include beam and column lengths as well as
placement of beams and columns relative to each other as shown in Figure 3.7.1.
Spacing requirements for the beams relative to the column were prescribed at both ends.
Proper clear distance was required for the CJP connection to meet code specifications.
Sufficient clear distance was provided at the shear connection to allow rotation of the
shear plate without binding on the fillet weld that connected the shear plate to the
column. The beam length was monitored to ensure that the overall width of the frame
would match the requirement for proper fit-up to the test setup. In addition, the beam
was placed within strict tolerances to meet standard construction practices and ensure
proper fit-up. The south beam was placed 1-in. to 11/8-in. from the base of the column
to meet weld detailing requirements and ensure proper fit-up at the south shear
connection. The column extension on the north beam at the CJP connection required a
minimum overhang of 1/2-in. to meet weld detailing requirements. The north end of the
west column needed to be flush with the beam in order to allow proper fit of the load
beam to the specimen.
53
Figure 3.7.1 - Frame Tolerances
3.8 Fabrication
The construction of the specimens was completed by students under the supervision of
an experienced steel construction worker. The frames were constructed as follows:
Cut beams, column and brace to length
Complete weld preparations
Complete beam and column connections
Connect column stiffener plates
54
Cut gusset plates to appropriate dimensions
Weld gusset plates to frame
Weld Brace to gusset plates
Weld brace thickener plates
Each SCBF component was first cut to the needed size. Beams and columns were
flame cut, and cut surfaces were ground to length with tolerances shown in Figure 3.7.1.
The gusset plates were flame cut to size, and the edges were ground smooth using an
angle grinder. The brace was cut to length using a band saw.
The necessary weld preparations were made in accordance with AISC standards. The
beam web and flanges were cut to a 45 degree angle for the CJP joint. Weld access
holes were also provided in the beam as shown in Figure 3.7.2. In order to slot the
brace, a hole was first drilled at the end of the slot as shown in Figure 3.7.3. Brace slots
were then flame cut slightly oversized with a small taper in order to compensate for
local shrinkage due to heat affects and to simplify placement of the brace. The slot was
cut slightly off center of the brace in specimens HSS-03 through HSS-05. During
testing of HSS-02 the brace buckled downward with such extreme out-of-plane
displacements that it came in contact with the strong floor. To prevent this from
occurring, the brace slot was shifted down 3/16-in. from center and the brace was
installed with eccentricity upward to ensure that the brace buckled upward. This did not
significantly alter the buckling capacity of the brace and was within typical construction
tolerances.
55
Figure 3.7.2 - Weld Preparations
Figure 3.7.3 - Brace Slot for HSS-03 3/8-in. Gusset Plate
Shear tabs were first tack welded to the column at each end. The beams were then fit
up and clamped in place while bolt holes were drilled. As shown Figure 3.7.1 two
temporary bolts were used in the rigid beam-to-column connection at the gusset plate to
hold the beam in place while the welded connections were finished. This process
helped ensure that the necessary tolerances were met and that the specimen fit properly
in the test setup. In addition, fit up was done to ensure that a sufficient gap was
provided from the beam edge to the face of the column flange for the CJP joint, in
56
accordance with AISC Table 8-3. Once the bolts at each corner were properly
tightened the welds connecting the shear tabs to the frame and the CJP welds were
completed. All welds were completed by an experienced welder certified in the FCAW
process for all weld sizes in all positions in both groove and fillet welds. Once the
beam and column connections were completed the gusset plates were set in place and
fillet welded to the frame elements. In all specimens except HSS-01 stiffener plates
were then welded in the base of the column, to prevent local buckling of the flanges
during testing, as described in later chapters. In order to move the frame from the
construction area to the test setup, the specimen was then unbolted at the NW and SE
shear tab connections. The two L-shaped sections and the brace were then moved to the
test apparatus. Once in place, the specimen was rebolted and the brace was set in place
and welded to the gusset plates. Thickener plates were then welded to the brace.
Finally bolt holes were then drilled in both top and bottom beams in order to attach the
specimen to the test setup.
57
Chapter 4
Experimental Setup
4.0 Introduction
This chapter provides a description of the experimental program. The first section is a
description of the test set up. This includes an overview of the setup and how it was
used followed by a detailed description of each component. As the project progressed
modifications to the test setup were necessary. These modifications are also discussed.
This is followed by a brief description of test specimen tolerances. The next section
gives an overview of the instrumentation configuration as well as a description of the
data acquisition system. Finally, the testing procedures, including the load history, are
discussed.
4.1 Test Setup Overview*

The experimental test setup was designed to simulate, as closely as possible, conditions
that would exists in an actual building frame. The focus of the study is the gusset plate
connection. Although the test setup does not provide continuous out-of-plate support to
the beams as a concrete slab would provide, it was felt that the test setup was realistic
enough in order for the brace and gusset plate connection to behave in a realistic
manner that would be representative of the way in which a SCBF system would behave.
The test setup consists of several components which are shown in Figure 4.1.1. The
notations 1-9 will be referred to in the description of the various components. The
locations of these components are shown in Figure 4.1.2. A photograph of the actual
test setup is shown in Figure 4.1.3. Detailed drawings of the test setup components are
included in Appendix C.
*
This section was written in collaboration with Adam Christopulos (11)
Figure 4.1.1 Test Setup Schematic
58
59
Figure 4.1.2 - Test Setup Component Locations

60
Strong Wall
Channel Assembly
White Wash
Out-of-Plane
Restraint
Load Beam Axial Force System

Strong Floor
Figure 4.1.3 - Test Setup Photograph
Figure 4.1.4 is a schematic representation of the forces applied to the test frame and
setup by the actuator. Arrows a-c represent the transfer of the lateral force and d-i
represent the transfer of the force couple caused by an overturning moment. As the
actuator head displaces this applies a force (a1, a2) to both the load beam and the
reaction block. The reaction block carries the force to the strong floor through friction.
An equal force is applied to the load beam which is transferred through bearing in the
bolts that connect the load beam to the specimen. The force is then transmitted through
the north beam and induces a force in the brace. The brace force is transferred to the
south beam of the frame and to the channel assembly through the south beam. This
transfer occurs through bearing of the bolts in the south shear connection. Depending
on the direction of the applied load, the force is then transferred to the strong wall
through friction and compression (applied compressive force) or through friction and
tension of the prestressing rods (applied tensile force). Finally, the strong wall transfers
61
the lateral force to the strong floor. The overturning moment is resisted by the axial
force system (d, g), which is transferred to the channel assembly (e, h). The transfer is
made using an anchor system that consists of HSS 4x4x1/2 sections that are welded to
the channel assembly, as will be discussed. The force is then transferred to the strong
wall through either compression or through tension of the prestressing rods (f, i).
Figure 4.1.4 - Force Transfer
4.1.1 Strong Wall and Strong Floor

The setup was designed utilizing the pre-existing concrete strong walls (1) and strong
floor (2) as illustrated in Figure 4.1.1. The strong wall is a prestressed concrete wall
with embedded conduits spaced at 18-in. on center. Similarly, the strong floor is also
prestressed concrete and contains open conduits with threaded anchors embedded near
the base of the floor. These anchors are used to stress elements to the floor, and are
spaced at 3 feet on center.
62
4.1.2 Channel Assembly
Component (3) is an assembly made up of two C15x50 sections and various plate
elements as shown in Figure 4.1.5. Component (3) is stressed to the strong wall using
several high-strength threaded rods which vary in diameter and material strength. Exact
rod size, location and tensioning values are given in Figure C.1 in Appendix C. The
assembly is used to transfer all forces that are applied to the frame by the actuator (5) to
the strong wall. This assembly is used to protect the reaction wall against large
concentrated reactions provided by the test frame and to distribute these forces without
damaging the concrete.
Lateral shear forces are transferred from the frame to the channel assembly on the south
beam at the shear connection as seen in Figure 4.1.6. This connection was designed to
be as small as possible in order to minimize the restraint on the system and thus allow
for rotations along the length of the beam as well as at beam-to-column connections.
This connection uses 10 1-in. diameter bolts to connect the south beam of the frame
directly to the channel assembly as shown in Figure 4.1.6. The shear force is
transferred to the wall using a combination of friction and bolt tension. A coefficient of
friction 0.2 was used for calculating frictional forces between steel and concrete
elements. At the east end of the channel assembly a "kicker" plate and stiffeners were
included to ensure transfer of the shear force into the L-shaped strong wall.
63
Figure 4.1.5 - Channel Assembly Cross-Section
Figure 4.1.6 - Shear Transfer Connection
Overturning moments of the test frame are resisted by the channel assembly in conjunction with
the strong wall. As illustrated in Figure 4.2 a C15x50 channel section was located on the back
side of the strong wall opposite the channel assembly. This arrangement served to confine the
strong wall to improve the composite action to resist the force couple resulting from the
overturning moments.
64
4.1.3 Load Beam
The load beam (4) is used to apply the force from the actuator to the north beam of the
specimen. A W21x62 section was used. Various welded plates, as shown in Figure
4.1.7, were used to stiffen the beam.
Figure 4.1.7 - Load Beam Details
The load beam is connected to the north beam using 10 1-in. diameter bolts, as shown in
Figure 4.1.7. The length of this connection was determined to balance distributing the
force into the north beam while permitting rotation of the north beam. The load beam
was connected to the actuator swivel head by four 1-in. diameter socket head bolts. The
bolts were fully tensioned to minimize movement of the load beam relative to swivel
head.
The 2-in. continuity plates in the load beam are used to transfer the column axial loads,
through the load beam to the column. Axial loads were applied to the columns by high
strength steel rods (8). In addition, the 2-in. plate between the load beam and actuator
65
swivel transfers the actuator force from the swivel head to the load beam. Web
stiffeners were added for specimens HSS-04 and HSS-05 due to large inelastic
deformations in the north noted in some earlier tests.
4.1.4 Actuator and Reaction Block

A hydraulic actuator was used, as shown in Figure 4.1.1, to apply the lateral force and
displacement history to each specimen. The actuator used for HSS-01 through HSS-03
had a nominal stroke of 10 in., a nominal tensile capacity of 227 kips and a nominal
compressive capacity of 373 kips. The actuator used for HSS-04 and HSS-05 had a
nominal stroke of 10 in., a nominal tensile capacity of 330 kips and a nominal
compressive capacity of 470 kips.
The actuator was prestressed to the reaction block (6) using six 11/8-in. diameter, 8
thread, B-7 threaded rods. The rods were tensioned to a combined force of 360 kips, to
prevent movement of the actuator relative to the reaction block.
The reinforced concrete reaction block transfers the actuator force to the strong floor.
The reaction block was stressed to the strong floor (2) through six 2-in. diameter
threaded rods, which were attached to the floor anchors and stressed to 220 kips each.
Hydro-stone was placed underneath the reaction block and on the top of the reaction
block below the rod bearing plates to ensure proper bearing surface area as shown in
Figure 4.1.8. A 12"x12"x2" thick cotton duck elastomeric bearing pad was used
between the actuator base and the concrete block to allow for slight rotations between
the actuator and the block. Figure 4.1.9 shows a schematic of the reaction
block/actuator assembly.
66
Prestressing Rods Reaction
Actuator
Load Cell Block
Swivel
Spiral Washers Adapter Plate

Hydro-Stone
Figure 4.1.8 - Actuator and Reaction Photograph
Figure 4.1.9 - Actuator and Reaction Block Assembly
The actuator swivel head was attached to the actuator by a threaded pin which was
prestressed to the maximum tensile force of the actuator to ensure minimal deformation
and variation in the pin load during testing. This was accomplished by use of the spiral
washers as indicated in Figure 4.1.9. Figure 4.1.8 shows a photograph of the
actuator/reaction block assembly.
67
4.1.5 Out-of-Plane Restraints
Out-of-plane restraint to the test frame (7) was developed to simulate the out-of-plane
restraint in a structure that is provided by additional framing components. The out-of-
plane restraint system limited out-of-plane movement of the frame while minimizing
resistance to in-plane motions caused by friction. The chosen system used W-sections
that "sandwiched" the frame members, as shown in Figure 4.1.10 without the frame.
Figure 4.1.11 shows how the frame fits in these components. This system was chosen,
because it was economical and allowed unobstructed in-plane translation of the frame.
W-sections
Threaded Rod
Strong Floor
Figure 4.1.10 - Out-of-Plane Restraints
The application of these out-of-plane restraints is straightforward. The frame beam or

column rests between the top and bottom W-sections, which are held in place by the
threaded rod. Two 1-in. diameter threaded rods stabilize each restraint element. The
location of the out-of-plane restraints are shown in Figures 4.1.1 and 4.1.2. Notched
nylon cylinders and flat nylon sheets were placed between the steel W-sections and the
specimens as shown in Figure 4.1.11. Steel "skis" were made of thin, smoothly polished
stainless steel to place between the steel of the specimens/out-of-plane restraints and
nylon. The "skis" were lubricated with a silicon insulation gel before placement to
provide a low-friction sliding surface. The upper out-of-plane restraints were only
loosely tightened to allow free movement of the frame and to minimize binding.
68
Steel "Skis"
Steel "Skis"
Nylon Nylon
a) b)
Steel "Skis"
Nylon
c)
Figure 4.1.11 - In-Plane Sliding Surfaces
4.1.6 Column Axial Load System

The column axial load system was used to simulate the axial load of the column and to
resist the overturning moments resulting from the applied load from the actuator. The
axial load was applied using two 13/8-in. diameter, high strength (150 ksi), Williams
rods, placed symmetrically above and below each column as shown in Figures 4.1.12
and 4.1.13. The rods were pretensioned using a short-stroke hydraulic ram. Spherical
nuts and cupped bearing plates were used at the north end of the system (Figure 4.1.12)
to transfer the prestressing force to the 4-in. cap plates. The cap plates then applied the
69
axial load to the top of each column. At the south end of the system, prestressing rods
passed through the center of HSS 4x4x1/2 sections that were welded to the channel
assembly. Spherical nuts and cupped bearing plates were used to transfer the
prestressing force of the rods to channel assembly (6) using the HSS sections.
Figure 4.1.12 - Axial Load System Schematic
Spherical Nut Williams Rods
Cupped
Bearing Plate
4-in. Cap Plate
HSS 4x4x1/2
a) b)
Figure 4.1.13 - Axial Load System Photographs
Spherical nuts and cupped bearing plates were used to allow the rods to rotate freely
during frame translation. The holes in the cap plates were oversized by 1/8-in. to allow
free movement of the rods. In addition, the spherical nuts were greased to minimize
friction.
70
Figure 4.1.13b shows the north end of the system which makes use of 4-in. steel plate to
bear on the north end of the column. Figure 4.1.13a shows the south end of the system
which makes use of a HSS section to connect the rods to the channel assembly.
4.1.7 Modifications to Test Assembly

The initial design of the test setup performed quite well, but alterations were made to
improve the performance. The modifications include:
Out-of-Plane Restraint LB (HSS-03 through HSS-05)
Load Beam Stiffeners (HSS-04 through HSS-05)
Larger Capacity Actuator (HSS-03 through HSS-05)
Out-of-Plane Restraints SW & NE (HSS-05)
A fourth out-of-plane restraint shown in Figure 4.1.1 and in Figure 4.1.11c, the new
restraint was added to help restrain the load beam against out-of-plane movement after
completion of tests HSS-01, HSS-02 and the first part of HSS-03. This alteration was
made due to out-of-plane buckling of the north beam of the specimen noted at larger
displacement cycles. Specimens tested after this addition showed no signs of severe
out-of-plane buckling of the north beam. Load beam stiffeners were added to eliminate
the potential for local yielding and damage of the load beam.
For specimens HSS-04 and HSS-05, the larger capacity actuator was used. The
modification was made to meet the requirements of the companion BRBF test program.
(11) The second actuator had a nominal tensile capacity of 330 kips and a nominal
compressive capacity of 470 kips under 3000 psi hydraulic pressure. The replacement
actuator had a different hole pattern in the base plate and a transfer plate was
manufactured to connect the actuator to the reaction block. The transfer plate was a 4-
in. thick steel plate with hole patterns of both actuators drilled through the plate.
Counter sunk holes were used to connect the actuator to the plate and the plate to the
reaction block (which had the hole pattern of actuator 1). Two sets of six 11/8-in.
71
diameter, B-7 threaded rods were used to stress the adapter plate to the actuator, and the
adapter plate to the reaction block. Detail drawings of the adapter plate are given in
Figure C.11 in Appendix C.
Modifications to the test setup for HSS-05 included two additional out-of-plane
supports underneath the NE and SW corners of the frame as shown in Figure 4.1.1.
Out-of-plane buckling of the brace applied a downward vertical force at the frame
corners. This caused downward out-of-plane movements of the NE corner, but such
deformation is not expected in the actual structure because of the diaphragm stiffness of
the slab. To prevent this from happening supports were added as seen in Figure 4.1.14.
The figure shows the support used for the NE corner. As is shown, the support is
simply square tube sections welded together with a sliding surface like those discussed
in Section 4.2.5. The tubes were bolted to the strong floor, to prevent movement of the
tubes during testing. Due to the fact that the SW corner of the frame remains relatively
motionless throughout the test, the sliding surface was omitted in this corner.
Specimen
Polished Steel
Nylon
HSS 5x5x3/8
Figure 4.1.14 - NE Out-of-Plane Support Modification (HSS-05)

72
4.2 Instrumentation
Data for each specimen was acquired using load cells, potentiometers, strain gauges and
visual observations. Potentiometers were used to measure in-plane and out-of-plane
motion including values of translation and rotations as shown in Figure 4.2.1. Strain
gauges were attached to beams columns and brace to monitor axial stress, shears and
moments as shown in Figure 4.2.2. Visual observations included the propagation of
yielding as well as global and local buckling. The force applied to the specimen was
measured by the load cell on the actuator. Biaxial strain gauges were attached to the
NE gusset plate for HSS-01 in the pattern shown in Figure 4.2.3. This section provides
a summary of the instrumentation configuration. Appendix C.3 provides a detailed
description of each measurement that was taken. The information provided includes:
Exact Location of each device
How the device was attached
What the device measured
Any adjustments made to the original configuration
Example photographs of each configuration type
Figure 4.2.1 Potentiometer Schematic
73
Figure 4.2.2 Strain Gauge Schematic
74
75
Figure 4.2.3 - Plate Strain Gauge Schematic
BEI DUNCAN model 600 and model 9600 were used to measure:
Frame translation
Rotation of beams and columns
Out-of-plane motion of the frame
Out-of-plane bending of the gusset plates
Rotation of the brace relative to the gusset plates
Slip of the frame relative to the test setup
Slip of the test setup relative to the strong floor and strong wall.
Rotation measurements for the beam and column used extensions to measure over a
larger length than the device alone could reach. The length of measurement was
approximately 4/3 the depth of the member for beam and columns. This was done to
capture bending rotation in the area of potential plastic hinging of the frame elements.
Rotations of the brace relative to the gusset plate were measured over a distance equal
to the depth of the brace past the area of the thickener plate. Springs were used on
model 9600 potentiometers to ensure constant contact of the device to the specimen/test
setup. Potentiometers measuring out of plane rotation of the gusset plates were attached
76
to the floor for measuring out-of-plane movement of the southwest gusset plate and a
shelf for the northeast gusset plate. The shelf was attached to the column, because this
allowed the devices to move with the frame. By doing this, relative motion between the
potentiometers and the plate was kept to a minimum.
UniMeasure model P510 string potentiometers were used to measure axial deformation
of the brace and the change in length along frame diagonal parallel to the brace. Two
addition potentiometers were used in conjunction to measure out of plane motion of the
brace. The two potentiometers were attached perpendicular to each other at the same
location on the brace. This made it possible to correct the measurements for in-plane
translation of the frame. All string potentiometers were attached to the specimen using
a light weight wire with a high tensile strength, since this made it possible to span larger
distances of up to 13 ft with little sag and effect on the recorded measurements.
All strain gauge were manufactured by Tokyo Sokki Kenkyujo Co. Ltd. Beam and
column strains were measured with FLA-6-11-5L gauges. Biaxial strain gauges FCA-
6-11-5L, when used, were used to monitor strains in the gusset plates. For specimen
HSS-04 high elongation strain gauges YFLA-6-11-5L were used to measure strains in
the HSS tubes. All gauges had a nominal gauge factor of 2.12 with a 6mm gauge
length. The gauges were normally intended for use in measuring elastic strains.
Therefore, any yielding that occurred in the location of a gauge made the gauge
ineffective. Due to this limitation, gauges were placed in areas where yielding was not
expected. The exception of this is with the high elongation strain gauges in the HSS
brace elements.
The axial force in the actuator was measured from the load cell in the actuator.
Therefore, small changes in the geometry of the specimen as well as friction between
the specimen and the lateral support were neglected in the interpretation of test data.
77
Whitewash was applied to hot rolled steel plate and wide flanges in areas where
yielding was expected to aid visual observations. Whitewashing consisted of applying a
mixture of approximately 2.5 parts water to 2 parts Beadex Silverset 40, as shown in
Figure 4.1.3. Once dry, the mixture bonds to the mill scale of the steel, and yielding of
the steel was emphasized by flaking of the whitewash.
The whitewash proved to be less effective on the brace than on the other elements of the
SCBF. This is attributed to the method in which the brace is formed, namely that it is
hot rolled into a flat plate and then cold-formed into the hollow tube section. This
process limits the amount of "mill scale" present on the surface of the brace. This type
of surface does not allow the whitewash mixture to bond as well to the surface of the
steel. As a result the whitewash will flake off in large chunks rather than showing areas
of localized yielding. However, the whitewash did provide some indication that the
brace was indeed undergoing inelastic behavior.
4.3 Data Acquisition System

LabVIEW version 6.0 was used to control the data acquisition system. A windows-
based personal computer system with National Instrument hardware was used to store
data and interface with LabVIEW. A SCXI 1001 chassis was used in conjunction with
SCXI 1100 and SCXI 1300 modules, for potentiometers, and SCXI 1121 and SCXI
1321 modules for strain gauges. A Hewlett Packard E3611A DC power supply was
used to supply the constant 10 volts needed for the potentiometers. LabVIEW scanned
data channels and converted measured voltage to appropriate physical quantities before
being recorded to the data file. Measurements of voltage from the potentiometers were
converted to units of inches by using an appropriate calibration factor corresponding to
a given potentiometer. Strain gauges were configured using a two-wire quarter-bridge
circuit and readings from the strain gauges were converted to units of micro strain using
a built in function of LabVIEW. Voltage supply was recorded during testing to
monitor any change in voltage that would affect the readings being taken. Readings
78
from the instruments were recorded every second during testing to a tab delimited file.
Data was then processed for analysis using Microsoft Excel.
4.4 Testing
4.4.1 Pre-Test Preparation
Specimens were first moved into position on the test frame using an overhead crane and
a forklift. The specimen frame was then leveled. After this, out-of-plane restraints
were adjusted for proper fit. Top and bottom beams were then bolted to the testing rig.
Steel shims were placed next as needed for proper fit. Whitewashing and
instrumentation was then completed. After this, the axial force was applied, as
described in Section 4.1.6. In order to minimize unbalanced loads in the columns, the
total load of 175 kips was applied to each rod in stages. Bearing bolts were then
retightened to ensure "snug tight" conditions. The exact location of each instrument
was measured followed by a check to verify that each instrument was in working
condition. Video cameras were then setup along with a lighting system. A digital
camcorder was used to film the entire frame and a VHS camcorder was used to film the
behavior of the brace and gusset plates more closely.
4.4.2 Test Procedures

Specimens were loaded cyclically with a displacement controlled horizontal force. The
first half of each load cycle caused a tensile force in the brace. Loading was
periodically paused during testing in order to document specimen behavior. The test
was also stopped near the end of the test and the residual load removed. This was done
in order to change pumps that applied hydraulic pressure to the actuator. Most of the
testing was completed on a larger main pump with a nominal running pressure of 3000
psi. This was adequate for most of the test. However, the actuator was designed to run
at a higher pressure of 3600 psi. Thus, at the lower pressure the maximum force of the
actuator was not sufficient for the largest drift levels. A smaller pump was used to
generate the higher pressures needed to increase the maximum force that the actuator
79
could apply. This pump was only used near the end of the test due to the limited time it
could be used without overheating. Testing was resumed once the actuator was
manually adjusted to the original displacement before the residual load was removed.
Testing was monitored closely for any problems with the loading, boundary conditions,
instrumentations, and out-of-plane supports. A digital camera was used throughout the
test to document damage states at each cycle level. Upon completion of each test the
final state of the specimen was also documented. In addition, the entire test was video
recorded using the devices described in the previous section. The residual prestressing
force in each rod of the axial system was also recorded at the end of each test.
4.4.3 Loading Procedure

Load history was based upon the ATC-24 and the SAC Steel Project testing protocols.
(7, 32) Load history is based on the interstory drift angle, y, of the frame at the onset of
first yielding or buckling. Figure 4.4.1 shows the protocol used. The loading protocol
follows a symmetrical, step-wise loading pattern. The load cycles were run as shown
below.
For: 0 < 1.0 y 60 second cycles
For: 1.0 y < 2.0 y 80 second cycles
For: 2.0 y < 4.0 y 120 second cycles
For: 4.0 y 160 second cycles

80
Figure 4.4.1 - Loading History
The controlling parameter y, was estimated using the yield displacement, based on the
theoretical buckling load of the brace element. The buckling load was converted to an
applied horizontal force by multiplying the brace force by the sine of the brace angle.
Then, using Visual Analysis, the theoretical yield displacement was found by applying
the calculated horizontal force to an idealized braced frame computer model of the
specimen, as shown in Figure 4.4.2. The results of the analysis were used to construct
an initial load pattern. During testing the behavior of the frame was monitored for signs
of initial yielding or buckling of the brace. The final loading scheme used for
subsequent specimens was based on the recorded drift level at which initial buckling
occurred. Load patterns for each test are discussed in Chapter 5.
81
Figure 4.4.2 - Structural Analysis Model

82
Chapter 5
Experimental Results
5.0 Introduction
This chapter covers the behavior of five SCBF specimens. Specimens were tested in
the following order:
HSS-01 - October 15, 2004
HSS-02 - November 3, 2004
HSS-03 - December 13, 2004 & January 12, 2005*
HSS-04 - March 15, 2005
HSS-05 - April 29, 2005
Section 5.1 provides information on the performance states and defines a reference
system for them. Emphasis is placed on the yield and failure mechanisms for key SCBF
components. The discussion of performance will be presented in terms of the drift ratio.
Section 5.2 discusses data interpretation methods. Sections 5.3 through 5.7 discuss
behavior of the individual specimens. Photographs are provided to illustrate
performance states. Section 5.8 provides a comparison of the performance states and
force-drift response for all specimens. In this discussion, positive values of drift ratio
and applied load refer to the tension excursions of the brace, whereas negative values
refer to the compression excursions.
The design of each specimen is described in detail in Chapter 3. However, a brief

summary of the test specimen characteristics is provided in Table 5.0.1.
*
Testing of specimen HSS-03 began on December 13, 2004, but was stopped for
repairs to the specimen and test setup. Testing of this specimen was finished on January
12, 2005.
83
Table 5.0.1 - Specimen Summary
5.1 Yield Mechanisms and Failure Modes

5.1.1 SCBF Component Notation
Figure 5.1.1 illustrates notation that will be used for indicating locations of yielding and
buckling in the test specimen. Notations in parentheses will be used in tables for each
specimen section to indicate locations of yielding or failure. References made to the
directions north, south, east and west are indicated in the figure. The bottom part of the
figure is the front view of the specimen and illustrates the terms: top, bottom, inside,
and outside.
84
Figure 5.1.1 - SCBF Component Notation
5.1.2 Typical Specimen Behavior

The yield mechanisms covered in this chapter were based on visual observations and
include yielding and buckling. Yielding was determined by the flaking of whitewash.
Local buckling was based on permanent local bending observed in any element. The
onset of brace buckling was based on the first signs of initial bending in the brace.
Table 5.2.1 provides a summary of the typical performance states observed throughout
the specimens. Normal font indicates a yielding mechanism where as bold, underlined
font indicates a failure mode.
85
5.1.1 - Typical Yielding Mechanisms and Failure Modes
Initial buckling of the brace was the first observed performance state in each specimen.
At larger drift levels yielding of the gusset plate, beams, columns and eventually the
brace were noted in most specimens. Three locations of yielding were noticed in the
gusset plate. Yielding caused during the tension excursion of the brace which caused
diagonal yield lines to form at the end of the brace as shown in Figure 5.1.2a. Yield
lines also formed at the end of the brace during the compression excursion of the brace.
These yield lines formed approximately perpendicular to the length of the brace as
shown in Figure 5.1.2b. Yielding of the gusset plates was also observed in the corners
of the gusset plate at the free edges by the beam and column. This type of yielding was
observed during both excursions and an example of this yielding is shown in Figure
5.1.2c.
86
a) Tension Yielding of Gusset Plate b) Compression Yielding of Gusset Plate
c) Corner Yielding of Gusset Plate

Figure 5.1.2 - Locations of Gusset Plate Yielding
Yielding and local bending of the beams and columns was restricted to the shaded areas
shown in Figure 5.1.1 and the south end of both columns. Local bending in the beams
and columns always followed yielding and only occurred in some cases where large
plastic strains were noted. Yielding and local buckling of the columns led to a loss of
prestress force in the rods of the axial force system. This loss of prestress resulted in
uplift of the columns relative to the channel assembly. This uplift caused rigid body
rotation of the frame, which led to larger lateral movements at the north beam of the
frame. As a result of this rigid body rotation, measurements of story drift were
corrected by a process discussed later in this chapter.
87
Larger drift levels also caused rotation of the shear tab connections in the NW and SE
connection. Rotations in these connections caused bolt-hole elongation in the beam
web. In specimens HSS-03 and HSS-04 demands placed on the connection were large
enough to fracture the bolt in the NW connection.
Weld cracking and tearing was limited to the gusset plate-to-frame connection welds.
Initial cracking of the welds typically occurred during the compression excursion of the
brace.
Once buckling initiated in the brace, out-of-plane deformations increased as the drift
increased. Large out-of-plane deformations in the brace led to strain concentrations in
the brace at the midspan of the brace. These concentrations caused the initiation of
tearing in the brace which led to fracture of the brace across the net section. This
behavior was observed in specimens HSS-02 through HSS-05. The typical progression
of buckling is shown in Figure 5.1.3. This figure shows the shape of the brace at
various drift levels for specimen HSS-05. The effects of local strain concentrations in
the brace are shown in Figure 5.1.4. This figure shows the progression of failure at the
midspan of the brace for HSS-02. All photos were taken at similar drift levels of -
2.05% drift with a maximum out-of-plane displacement of 13.5-in. measured at the
midpoint of the brace. The progression of failure shown in Figure 5.1.4 is as follows:
a) Initial local deformations
b) Local deformations causes sides of brace to bulge
c) Local deformations becomes pinched
d) Severe local deformations in brace walls
e) Initial tearing at brace corners in tension
f) Tearing progresses to brace walls
g) Tearing of at least one entire side of brace
h) Complete tearing across entire brace section
88
The top four pictures were taken while the brace was loaded in compression in cycles.
The bottom four pictures were taken while the brace was loaded in tension. As shown
in the figure the brace had a tendency to bulge outward on the sides and then "pinch"
inward on the concave surface. The magnitude of the local deformations increased with
larger and multiple displacements as shown. These deformations were the result of high
levels of strain present in the corner of the brace. These strains led to fatigue that
caused tearing to initiate in the corners of the brace. After initial tearing, the brace tore
through the cross section of the brace as shown.
89
a) -0.39% b) -0.70% c) -1.19%
d) -1.56% e) -1.95% f) -2.34%
g) -2.71% h) -2.74% i) -3.08%

Figure 5.1.3- Brace Buckling Progression
90
a) b) c) d)
e) f) g) h)
Figure 5.1.4 - Brace Failure Progression
5.1.3 Performance State Notation

A summary of the notations that will be used for all performance states are shown in
Table 5.1.2. The notations are described below.
Table 5.1.2 - Performance State Notation
Five categories are used to define yield states as illustrated in Figures 5.1.5 and 5.1.6:
Y1 -> Initial (Yield lines first visible)
Y2 -> Mild (Yield lines cover half the member width/depth)
Y3 -> Moderate (Yield lines cover most of the member width/depth)
91
Y4 -> Significant (Small areas where whitewash has completely flaked off)
Y5 -> Severe (Large areas where whitewash has completely flaked off)
Figure 5.1.5 illustrates these states for the gusset plate, and applies to all gusset plates.
An example of these states is shown in Figure 5.1.6 for a column flange, and applies to
all beam and column flanges and webs.
92
Initial Yield Lines Brace End
Initial Yield Lines Corner
a) Y1- Initial (Gusset Corner) b) Y1 - Initial (Brace End)
Yield Lines Over Majority of Plate

Areas of Flaking
a) Y3 - Moderate b) Y4 - Significant
Large Areas of Flaking

e) Y5 - Severe
Figure 5.1.5 - Gusset Plate Performance States
93
Initial Yield Lines

Yield Lines Over Half of
Member Width/Depth
a) Y1- Initial b) Y2 - Mild
Areas of Flaking
Yield Lines Over Majority

of Member Width/Depth
c) Y3 - Moderate d) Y4 - Significant
Large Areas of Flaking
e) Y5 - Severe
Figure 5.1.6 - Beam and Column Performance States
94
Buckling is divided into four categories:
B1 -> Initial (Visible Bending)
B2 -> Moderate (Deflections greater than member depth/element thickness)
B3 -> Severe (Pinching of Bent Shape)
Figure 5.1.7 shows the buckling performance states as they apply to the brace. Figure
5.1.8 shows these Performance states as they apply to the beams and columns.
Out-of-Plane Deflection
Visible Bending Greater than Member Depth
a) B1 - Initial b) B2 - Moderate
Pinching of Bent Shape
d) B3 - Severe
Figure 5.1.7 - Brace Buckling States
95
Visible Bending
Deformation Greater than

Element Thickness
a) B1 - Initial b) B2 - Significant
Pinching of Bent Shape
c) B3 - Severe
Figure 5.1.8 - Beam and Column Buckling States
Ductile cracking and tearing of the weld is considered acceptable weld damage as long
as the crack length is less than one-quarter of the total length as shown in Figure 5.1.9.
Weld fracture or excessive weld tearing was not noted in the specimens as long as the
lengths of the cracks were less than this length. Damage of the welds that fits this
description will be referred to as (WD) in subsequent sections.
96
Beam
Weld Crack Less than

One-Quarter Total Length
Gusset Plate
Figure 5.1.9 - Weld Damage

5.1.4 Failure Types
Compressive failure of the brace is defined by the presence of strain concentrations that
caused local deformations in the brace as shown in Figure 5.1.10a. Tensile failure of
the brace is defined as complete tearing across the entire brace as shown in Figure
5.1.10b. Brace Failure will be referred to as (BF) in later sections.
Pinching
a) Compressive Failure b) Tensile Failure

Figure 5.1.10 - Brace Failure States
Failure of the weld was considered to be a tearing of the weld greater that one-quarter
the total length or visible separation of the gusset plate from the frame as shown in
Figure 5.1.11. Welds that had torn to this length typically led to complete failure of the
weld in subsequent cycles which will be referred to as (WF) in later sections.
97
Separation of Gusset Plate

Tearing Greater than One- From Frame
Quarter Total Length
a) Weld Tearing b) Gusset Plate Separation

Figure 5.1.11 - Weld Failure
Bolt failure was defined as complete fracture over the entire area of the bolt as shown in
Figure 5.1.12 and will be referred to as (BS).
Figure 5.1.12 - Bolt Shear
5.1.5 Drift Ranges

Drift ranges are divided into five categories to describe the measured and observed
responses. Table 5.1.3 shows the drift ratios and cycles for each specimen. The ranges
are based on the minimum drift ratio of the compression excursion and were divided
based on the performance states to allow for a discussion of the progression of inelastic
behavior in each test.
98
Table 5.1.3 - Drift Ranges
5.2 Data Operations

5.2.1 Data File Adjustments
The first processing the data was to clean the data files. Since the data was recorded
continuously throughout the test, data were removed where the testing was paused. As
was stated in a previous chapter, the loading history was displacement controlled.
Therefore, data cleaning was based on LVDT readings from the actuator. Data points
were removed when LVDT readings were constant within a thousandth of an inch.
Original data files were compared with cleaned data files to help ensure that all peak
values remained and that important data phenomenon were not removed.
5.2.2 Calculations of Drift

When possible, story drift was calculated using two methods. The first method for
calculating story drift made use of elongation across the diagonal. Assuming small
angle changes of the brace diagonal the story drift is then equal to:
Frame _ Diagonal
Frame = (5.1)
cos(45)
The second method involved using the measured value of story drift and correcting the
measurements for slip of the frame and for rigid body rotations due to uplift of the
columns. The equation used to find the true story drift is shown below.
[ ]
Frame = ( Frame _ Measured 1) + Frame _ Slip + East _ Uplift
dF
dT
d
West _ Uplift F
dT
(5.2)
99
In this equation, dT is the horizontal distance from the rotation point to the instrument
measuring uplift of the column and dF is the vertical distance from the rotation point to
the instrument measuring story drift.
The result of correcting the data is shown in Figure 5.2.1. This figure shows a plot of
the force-drift response for a single cycle in specimen HSS-02. The corrected hysteresis
loop closely matches the shape of the corrected loops for the other specimens.
The figure also shows several points of curvature on the uncorrected loop. The points
indicated by arrows show places of apparent change in specimen stiffness that were not
present. The readings in the actuator load cell were considered accurate at all points
during testing. Therefore, the curved response indicates that the recorded value of story
drift is larger than the actual drift due to rigid body rotation of the frame as well as
slipping of the frame relative to the channel assembly.
Figure 5.2.1 - Force-Drift Response Correction

100
For specimens HSS-03 through HSS-05 both correction methods were used to calculate
the story drift. The values calculated using both methods closely matched with a
maximum difference of approximately 1/4-in. at the largest drift levels. However, for
specimens HSS-01 and HSS-02 only the second method was used to calculate story
drift. This is due to difficulties with the instrument being used to measure the change in
length of the frame diagonal.
5.3 HSS-01
Specimen HSS-01 was designed following current design procedures. The purpose of
this specimen was to evaluate current design provisions and act as a reference specimen
for subsequent specimens. This test specimen was subjected to 44 complete cycles.
The inelastic action of the frame included buckling and yielding of the brace as well as
weld cracking, limited yielding in the columns, and buckling of the column bases. The
overall failure of the system was complete weld fracture of the SW gusset plate from
the frame. This failure occurred during the tension excursion of Cycle 45. The peak
results are shown in Table 5.3.1.
101
Table 5.3.1 - HSS-01 Peak Results
The maximum drift was 1.11% and a minimum drift of -1.64%, with a maximum
applied load of 331 kips and a minimum of -192 kips. Figure 5.3.1 shows the applied
drift ratio history. A plot of the applied force is shown in Figure 5.3.2 and the corrected
force-drift response is shown in Figure 5.3.3. The plots do not include data from cycle
8. This was due to difficulties with the data acquisition system. However, this occurred
a lower elastic cycles.
102
Figure 5.3.1 - HSS-01 Drift Ratio History
Figure 5.3.2 - HSS-01 Applied Force History

103
Figure 5.3.3 - HSS-01 Force-Drift Response
5.3.2 Drift Range 1 (0.00% to -0.30%)

Brace buckling stage B1 was observed at -0.17% drift and -132 kips applied force. Out-
of-plane movement was observed in the form of downward bending of the brace
towards the strong floor. In addition, initial flaking of the whitewash on the brace was
noted. Small rotations in the shear connections were also observed. This was made
apparent by the flaking of whitewash around the bolts.
5.3.3 Drift Range 2 (-0.30% to -0.85%)

Brace buckling stage B2 was observed at -0.41% drift and -190 kips. This was
determined by a noticeable increase in out-of-plane buckling deformation of the brace.
As is shown in the force-drift response the hysteresis envelopes become more open as
the brace buckles.
Buckling stage B2 at both column bases was noted at 0.51% and -0.61% drift and 288
kips and -188 kips applied force. This is illustrated in Figure 5.3.4 at the east column
104
base. This inelastic deformation is attributed to a combination of the large stresses that
existed in the outer flange and the tendency for the column to slide in the direction of
loading. This phenomenon seems to be due to the testing conditions and would not be
expected in real building due to the fact that the flanges would be continuous through
the next story. This support helps to distribute stresses more evenly, and the continuity
of the flanges would restrain this deformation.
Channel
Assembly SE Column
Flange
Figure 5.3.4 - B1 East Column Base Flange Buckling (0.78% Drift)
5.3.4 Drift Range 3 (-0.85% to -1.50%)

At 0.74% drift and 330 kips applied load, initial weld cracking was observed in the top
weld adjacent the column in the NE gusset plate. The weld crack initiated at the free
edge of the gusset plate and was approximately 1-in. long. At the same drift initial
column uplift occurred. Figure 5.3.5 shows an example of the uplift at this drift.
105
Column Uplift
Figure 5.3.5 - West Column Uplift (0.74% Drift)
Brace buckling stage B3 was observed at -0.83% drift and -187 kips applied load.
Yielding stage Y1 was noted in the outer face of the inner flange in the east column
adjacent to the gusset plate at -1.04% drift and -188 kips applied load. Initial
propagation of weld cracks, as shown in Figure 5.3.6, was recorded during this same
drift cycle at 0.03% drift and -100 kips. At this point during loading the weld tore to a
length of approximately 8-in. Gusset plates would bend out-of-plane in the direction of
brace buckling. The brace bending in this specimen acted such that tensile forces would
be expected in the top side of the plate and compressive forces in the bottom side of the
plate. As shown in Figure 5.3.6 a large tear initiated at the edge of the NE gusset plate
on the top side by the column flange. A smaller crack also initiated in the same gusset
plate by the beam flange. (Figure 5.3.7)
106
NE Column
Weld Tear
Gusset Plate
Figure 5.3.6 - NE Gusset Plate Weld Tearing (-1.04% Drift)
NE Beam
Weld Crack Gusset Plate
Figure 5.3.7 - NE Gusset Plate Weld Cracking (-1.04% Drift)
During the second cycle of -1.04% drift, the weld tear shown in Figure 5.3.6 propagated
at 0.07% drift and -100 kips. The tear increased to about 2-in. in length. The weld
crack in the northeast gusset plate adjacent the beam propagated about 2.5-in. In
addition, initial weld cracking was observed in the southwest gusset plate adjacent the
beam marked by a crack approximately 4-in. long in the top fillet weld. The occurrence
of the weld tearing is indicated in Figure 5.3.3. The load reduced approximately 30 kips
after weld tearing as indicated in the force-drift response. A reduction in the out-of-
plane displacement at the midpoint of the brace was also observed after weld tearing.
107
At -1.37% drift and -187 kips the crack in the top fillet weld adjacent the beam in the
NE gusset plate propagated to approximately 5.5-in. long. The same weld propagated
to approximately 8-in. during the next cycle at -1.46% drift and -185 kips applied load.
At this same compressive drift yielding stage Y2 was observed in the outer face of the
inner flange in the east column adjacent to the gusset plate.
5.3.5 Drift Range 4 (-1.50% to -2.00%)

The maximum out-of-plane displacement measured at the midpoint of the brace was 10-
in. This occurred at -1.64% drift and -181 kips. The brace is shown in Figure 5.3.8 at
this value of drift.
Figure 5.3.8 - B2 HSS-01 Brace Buckling (-1.64% Drift)
At -1.64% drift and -179 kips severe sudden propagation of weld tearing occurred in the
SW gusset plate adjacent the beam. As shown in Figure 5.3.9 the weld tear extended
approximately 24-in. in the top weld. Due to the severity of the tear in the top weld the
bottom weld also began to tear as shown in Figure 5.3.10. In this same excursion the
weld tearing also propagated in the NE gusset plate adjacent the beam as shown in
Figure 5.3.11.
108
24"
SW Beam
Gusset Plate
Figure 5.3.9 - SW Gusset Plate Weld Tear 1 (-1.54% Drift)
Top
Bottom Weld
Gusset Plate
Figure 5.3.10 - SW Gusset Plate Weld Tear 2 (-1.54% Drift)
10.5"
NE Beam
Gusset Plate
Figure 5.3.11 - NE Gusset Plate Weld Tear (-1.54% Drift)

109
During the final tension excursion at 1.29% drift and 331 kips the SW gusset plate
completely separated from the frame as shown in Figure 5.3.12. This is attributed to the
loss of tensile capacity of the weld caused by progressive weld tearing.
SW Beam
Original Location
Gusset Plate
SW Column
Figure 5.3.12 - SW Gusset Plate Weld Failure (E.O.T)
5.4 HSS-02
The overall failure mode of specimen HSS-01 prevented the frame from achieving its
full ductility. In addition to this the large size of the gusset plate was uneconomical and
increased the rigidity of the frame causing the frame to be less ductile. In response to
these problems, the plate size was reduced and the weld size was increased. The gusset
plate was sized using a proposed elliptical clearance requirement, which replaced the
existing "2t" described in Chapter 3. A clearance requirement of 6t was used with the
proposed elliptical clearance definition. The gusset plate-to-frame welds were
increased using a more conservative design approach, as described in Chapter 3. The
purpose of this specimen was to test the adequacy of the smaller gusset plate. This test
specimen was subjected to 40 complete cycles. The inelastic action of the frame was
restricted to the buckling and yielding of the brace and limited yielding of the gusset
plate, beams and columns. The overall failure of the system was a result of brace
110
fracture during the tension excursion of cycle 41. The peak results and performance
states are shown in Table 5.3.1.
As the table shows, the maximum drift was 1.98% and a minimum drift of -2.05%, with
a maximum applied load of 338 kips and a minimum of -169 kips. Figure 5.4.1 shows
the loading history for this specimen. A plot of the applied force is shown in Figure
5.4.2 and the corrected force-drift response is shown in Figure 5.4.3. It is important to
note that the plateau of force in the compression and tension of the actuator was the
actual limit of the frame. Another important note is that the decrease in minimum
value of the drift angle as shown in Figure 5.4.1 is due to the fact that the tension
excursion had to be limited so that the brace would not come in contact with the strong
floor.
111

112
5.4.2 Drift Range 1 (0.00% to -0.30%)

of-plane movement was observed in the form of downward bending of the brace
towards the strong floor.
Buckling stage B1 was noted at both column bases at 0.21% and -0.27% drift (166 kips
and -169 kips force).
5.4.3 Drift Range 2 (-0.30% to -0.85%)

Yielding stage Y1 of tension yielding was observed in the SW gusset plate at the brace
end at 0.40% drift and 266 kips. This was seen by a few small lines where the
whitewash had flaked. Yielding stage Y1 in the NE column and beam was observed at
-0.56% and 0.40% drift and -159 kips and 266 kips. This was also noticed by the
flaking of the whitewash. Buckling stage B2 was observed in the brace at -0.70% drift
113
and -158 kips applied load. An out-of-plane deflection of 5.2-in. was measured at the
midpoint of the brace.
5.4.4 Drift Range 3 (-0.85% to -1.50%)

At 0.67% drift and 334 kips applied load initial flaking was observed in the NE gusset
plate at the end of the brace indicating yielding state Y1.
Yielding stage Y1 was detected in the corner of the NE gusset plate adjacent to the
column at 0.84% drift and 338 kips. Initial uplift of the column was observed at -1.08%
drift and -158 kips applied load.
5.4.5 Drift Range 4 (-1.50% to -2.00%)

Initial yielding (Y1) was observed in the corner of the NE gusset plate adjacent to the
beam at 0.94% drift and 337 kips.
Yielding stage Y2 was observed in the outer flange of the west column at -1.85% and
1.04% drift and -169 kips and 337 kips applied load as shown in Figure 5.4.4. At the
same drift, yielding stage Y2 was observed in the NE beams and columns adjacent to
the gusset plate.
114
Outer Flange West Column
Figure 5.4.4 - Y2 Outer Flange of West Column (-1.85% Drift)
Buckling stage B3 of the brace was observed at -1.85% drift and -169 kips. At this
stage the out-of-plane displacement of the brace was approximately 9.5-in. and the
deformed shape of the brace had started to triangulate.
5.4.6 Drift Range 5 (-2.00% to 3.10%)

Compressive brace failure (BF) was observed at -2.05% drift and -168 kips applied
load. This was detected by the initial presence of local deformations in the midspan of
the brace as discussed in Section 5.1. Additionally, the out-of-plane rotation of the
gusset plates, caused by out-of-plane deformations of the brace, led to initial weld
cracking in the top weld of the SW gusset plate adjacent the beam and column. The
rotation in the plate also led to yielding state Y1 in the SW gusset plate corner adjacent
the column. At the same drift buckling stage B1 was observed in the outer flange of the
west column and yielding stage Y2 of the inside face of the outer flange in the west
column. This drift also caused the column base of the west column to reach buckling
stage B2 as shown in Figure 5.4.5. Yielding of the NE column adjacent the gusset plate
propagated to stage Y3 on the outside face of the inner flange and the inside face of the
inner flange yielded to stage Y2 as shown in Figure 5.4.6.
115
Channel
Assembly
SW Column
Flange
Figure 5.4.5 - B2 West Column Base Flange (-2.05% Drift)
NE Column Flange
NE Column
NE Gusset
Plate NE Column Web
a) Y3 Outside Face b) Y2 Inside Face

Figure 5.4.6 - Y2 NE Column Flange (-2.05% Drift)
At 1.49% drift and 336 kips applied load, initial bending of the inner flange of the east
column was observed at stage B1.
At -2.00% drift and -151 kips the corner of the SW gusset plate adjacent the beam
yielded to stage Y3. At the same time the inner flange adjacent the gusset plate in the
south beam yielded to state Y1. Additionally, the top fillet weld adjacent the beam in
the NE gusset plate also cracked. The crack length was approximately 1.25-in. in
116
length. At this drift rotation of both shear connections was also observed as shown in
Figure 5.4.7.
Initial Position
Figure 5.4.7 - SE Shear Connection Rotation (-2.00%)
The maximum out-of-plane displacement of the brace was limited by the elevation of
the specimen relative to the strong floor. The maximum out-of-plane displacement
measured in the center of the brace was 13.75-in at -2.00% drift and -151 kips applied
load.
During the last compressive cycle before system failure at -1.73% drift and -128 kips
applied load all corners of both gusset plate had reached yield state Y3. This was
marked by the increased flaking of whitewash in the corner of the gusset plate. The
drift level had decreased due to the out-of-plane movement of the brace as indicated.
There fore it is important to note that at this drift the brace had deformed to the
maximum out-of-plane displacement of 13.75-in. at the center of the brace.
Initial tearing of the brace began in the tension excursion of the final cycle at 1.18%
drift and 177 kips. This caused a temporary reduction in load. The load and drift then
increased to 1.66% and 213 kips when complete fracture of the brace occurred at the
midspan of the brace. This was considered the lateral failure of the system.
117
5.4.7 End of Test
At the end of the test the yielding in the free edge corners adjacent to the frame had
reached yielding state Y4 over an approximate 5" x 5" area. A typical example of this
is shown for the SW gusset plate adjacent to the column in Figure 5.4.8
West Column
5"
SW Gusset Plate
Figure 5.4.8 - Y4 SW Gusset Plate (E.O.T)
Increasing the weld size reduced the fracturing of welds to small cracks of gusset plate
welds. Figure 5.4.9 shows a small crack less than 3-in. long in the corner of the gusset
plate-to-frame connection of the SW gusset plate. Similar weld cracking was also
observed in the NE gusset plate adjacent the column.
118
South Beam
SW Gusset Plate
Figure 5.4.9 - NEBG Gusset Plate Weld Crack (E.O.T.)
The state of the north beam at the end of the test is shown in Figure 5.4.10. As is shown
yielding of the beams increased in specimen HSS-02 compared to HSS-01. The
diagonal yield lines on the face of the flange extending from the gusset plate are typical
to those seen in most specimens at lower drift levels. Additionally, yielding was also
observed in the beam web as shown in Figure 5.4.11.
North Beam
NE Gusset Plate
Figure 5.4.10 - Y3 North Beam Flange (E.O.T)

119
North Beam
NE Gusset Plate
Figure 5.4.11 - Y2 North Beam Web (E.O.T)
Figure 5.4.12 shows the state of the east column at the end of the test. As the figure
shows larger levels of yielding are present in the column than in the beam. This also
shows that the column reached yield state Y4 before system failure. Yield lines patterns
shown in this figure are typical of those seen in subsequent tests.
East Column
NE Gusset Plate
Figure 5.4.12 - Y4 East Column Flange (E.O.T)
120
Figure 5.4.13 shows the state of the east column at the end of the test. This figure
shows that the column reached yield state Y3 before system failure. Yield lines patterns
shown in this figure are typical of those seen in subsequent tests.
Figure 5.4.13 - Y3 Outer Flange of West Column (E.O.T.)
After dismantling the specimen, it was possible to see bolt-hole elongation in the beam
web at the shear connection. This was due to the larger rotations in the connection at
larger drift levels. Figure 5..4.14 shows the bolt-hole pattern in the north beam. This
figure shows that elongation is more severe at the south end of the bolt pattern and
decreases to the minimum at the north end.
North
South
Figure 5.4.14 - Bolt Hole Elongation
121
5.5 HSS-03
This specimen was similar to HSS-02, except that HSS-03 used a larger factor for
Whitmore yielding that allowed the use of a thinner gusset plate. The purpose of this
was to increase the likelihood of gusset plate yielding. Unfortunately, the as-built
thickness of the gusset plate was similar to the thickness of the gusset plate in HSS-02,
but the yield strength of this gusset plate was considerably lower. This test specimen
was subjected to 44 complete cycles. The inelastic action of the frame was observed in
the form of buckling and yielding of the brace and yielding of the gusset plate, beams
and columns as well as bolt-hole elongation. The ultimate failure mode of the system
was fracture of the brace. This failure occurred during the tension excursion of Cycle
45. The peak results are shown in Table 5.5.1.
5.5.2 and the corrected force-drift response is shown in Figure 5.5.3. The maximum
values of force represent the limits of the specimen. The initial spike indicated in
122
Figures 5.5.2 and 5.5.3 was due to a surge of the actuator as will be discussed. Due to
unexpected damage to the specimen and test setup the test was stopped for adjustments
to the test setup and repairs to the specimen as will be discussed later in this chapter. In
order to stop the test any residual load in the actuator had to be removed by manually
adjusting the position of the actuator. Due to permanent deformations in the frame, the
residual load at zero was approximately 45 kips, which meant that the actuator had to be
moved to the tension side of zero in order to remove the load. This was a distance of
approximately 9/16-in.. For the second half of the test, cycles were started from this
point. This led to a larger displacement in compression excursion of the brace than
tension excursion of the brace. The small elastic cycles that appear midway through the
test are initials cycles run at the beginning of the second half of the test. These cycles
were used to verify that the equipment was running properly.

123

124
5.5.2 Actuator Surge
At the start of this test there was a short in the MTS controller which led to an initial
surge of the actuator. The surge consisted of a rapid push-pull cycle which completed
in approximately 2 seconds. During this surge the data acquisition system was not
recording and only limited data was available from the MTS controller. A maximum
extension in the actuator of approximately 3-in. was recorded of which applied a
compressive force of 295 kips. A negative displacement of 0.63-in. was also recorded.
No force was recorded for the tension phase in the actuator. However, no visible
damage to the frame caused by the surge in actuator tension was observed.
Figure 5.5.4 shows the damage sustained in the NE gusset plate due to the surge in
compression of the actuator. Similar damage was recorded for the SW gusset plate.
The figure shows that yield line patterns extend from the brace end and project outward.
This yielding pattern indicates that the damage was caused by an applied tensile force of
the brace. Yield state Y3 was observed in both gusset plates at the end of the brace.
Yield state Y1 was observed in the corner of the gusset plate adjacent the column in the
NE gusset plate.
Figure 5.5.4 - Y3 Damage of NE Gusset Plate (Surge)

125
Damage to the brace whitewash was not observed. Additionally, the brace did not have
visible bent shape that would indicate initial buckling of the brace.
Small levels of yielding were visible in the east column at the corner of the gusset plate.
As illustrated in Figure 5.5.5, yield lines project away from the gusset plate in all
directions at an angle of approximately 45 degrees.
Figure 5.5.5 - Y1 Damage of NE Column (Surge)
In addition to this small amount of yielding, initial buckling was noticed in the column
flanges at the base of each column. Initial bending was also noticed in the top column
flange in the west column adjacent to the gusset plate as shown in Figure 5.5.6.
126
Bending
Figure 5.5.6 - B1 SW Column Flange (Surge)
5.5.3 Drift Range 1 (0.00% to -0.30%)

No further performance states were observed at this drift range.
5.5.4 Drift Range 2 (-0.30% to -0.85%)

of-plane movement was observed in the form of upward bending of the brace away
from the strong floor.
Compression yielding of the SW gusset plate at the brace end was observed at -0.45%
drift and -147 kips. In the tension excursion of the same cycle at 0.36% drift and 259
kips applied load, yielding stage Y1 occurred in the corner of the SW gusset plate
adjacent the beam. Both of these performance states are shown in Figures 5.5.7 and
5.5.8 respectively.
127
Compression Yield Lines
SW Gusset Plate Brace End
Figure 5.5.7 - Y3 SW Gusset Plate (-0.45%)
Beam
SW Gusset Plate
Figure 5.5.8 - Y1 SWBG (0.36%)
At -0.70% drift and -144 kips the brace reach buckling stage B2. An out-of-plane
deformation of 5.45-in. was measured at the center of the brace.
The north beam began to buckle globally in the area of the load beam at 0.49% drift
with 310 kips applied load. This was determined by initial bending of the beam about
the weak axis of the beam. At 0.51% drift and 317 kips, buckling led to larger out-of-
plane bending in the beam as shown in Figure 5.5.9. It is believed that this observed
behavior was, in part, due to the initial surge, which may have caused slip of the test
setup as well as initial damage to the beam. Due to the inelastic deformation of the
beam, the test was stopped and adjustments were made to the test setup and the north
beam reinforced. Adjustments to the test setup include an additional lateral support to
128
restrain out-of-plane movement of the load beam. Figure 5.5.10 shows the stiffeners
that were added to the north beam flange to increase the weak-axis bending capacity
and prevent further damage of the beam in this area. The load beam was also re-leveled
by re-drilling bolt holes through the attached stiffener plates. Towards the end of the
test web yielding was observed in the north beam adjacent to the load beam.
Figure 5.5.9 - North Beam Buckling
Figure 5.5.10 - North Beam Stiffeners
5.5.5 Drift Range 3 (-0.85% to -1.50%)

At -1.12% drift and -158 kips applied load initial yielding (Y1) was observed in the
corner of the SW gusset plate adjacent the column.
5.5.6 Drift Range 4 (-1.50% to -2.00%)

129
Yielding state Y1 was observed in the outer flange of the west column at 0.82% drift
and 339 kips applied load. As is shown in Figure 5.5.11 yield lines formed vertically
towards the bottom of the flange. Additionally, initial column uplift was observed.
Figure 5.5.11 - Y1 Outer Flange West Column (0.82%)
Initial rotation was observed in the NW shear tab at -1.60% drift and -166 kips. This
was determined by the initial flaking of whitewash around the bolts in the connection.
Also, as the connection rotates the shear plate exposes steel on the beam that was not
whitewashed. This forms a visible separation from the original location of the shear
plate to the rotated position.
The yielding of both gusset plates increased to stage Y3 at -1.87% drift and -169 kips.
Two types of yield line patters were present: yield lines due to bending of the plate in an
approximate elliptical shape, and diagonal yield lines extending from the brace end.
Figure 5.5.12 shows the extent of the yielding in the gusset plate. The solid line drawn
in the figure shows the approximate elliptical shape of the yield line pattern that
progressively formed during compression phases of larger drift cycles.
130
Assumed
Hinge Line
Figure 5.5.12 - Y3 NE Gusset Plate (-1.87%)
In addition to the yielding of the gusset plate the west column reached yield state Y2.
Figure 5.5.13 shows the yield lines that formed diagonally across the flange.
Additionally, more vertical yield lines are visible at the top part of the flange. Yielding
of the NE column adjacent the gusset plate reached state Y3 at this same drift. This is
shown in Figure 5.5.14. This figure shows propagation of the yield lines over an area
equal to approximately the width of the flange in both directions.
Figure 5.5.13 - Y2 Outer Flange West Column (-1.87%)

131
Figure 5.5.14 - Y3 NE Inner Column Flange (-1.87%)
5.5.7 Drift Range 5 (-2.00% to -3.10%)

Initial buckling stage B1 was observed in the NE column flanges at 1.24% drift and 365
kips. Initial bending was detected in both the top and bottom flange of the column
adjacent the gusset plate. Figure 5.5.15 shows the state of the column in this area at this
drift.
Figure 5.5.15 - B1 NE Column Flange (1.24%)
In the same cycle at -2.21% drift and -167 kips, yielding state Y1 of the south beam
occurred. Flaking both the flange and the web of the beam were noted in the area
adjacent the gusset plate. This is illustrated in Figure 5.5.16. At this same
132
compressive peak, yielding was also observed in the inside face of the outer flange in
the west column. The yielding in this area had reached yield state Y2. The yield lines
were in the same area as those on the opposite face of the flange as was shown in Figure
5.5.13.
Web Yielding
Flange Yielding
Figure 5.5.16 - Y1 South Beam (-2.21%)
During the compression excursion of the next cycle at -2.24% drift and -162 kips initial
local deformations in the brace was observed indicating that buckling state B3 had been
reached. Also, small areas of whitewash had completely flaked off of the gusset plates
indicating yield state Y4. The areas of flaking were in the area of gusset plate hinging
as shown in Figure 5.5.17. This indicates that out-of-plane rotations of the brace place
large inelastic demands on the plate. The large out-of-plane rotations caused initial
weld cracking in the NE and SW gusset plate welds adjacent the columns. Both cracks
were both approximately 1-in. long beginning from the free edge of the gusset plate.
133
NE Column
NE Gusset Plate
Figure 5.5.17 - Y4 NE Gusset Plate (-2.24%)
Performance state B1 and Y2 was observed in the south beam at the same compressive
peak of -2.24% drift. Figure 5.5.18 shows the yielding of the flange in the area adjacent
the gusset plate. As is shown yielding had spread approximately 2/3 the width of the
flange and approximately 10.5-in. longitudinally. Although not apparent in the figure,
initial bending of the top part of the flange was present as well.
South Beam
SW Gusset Plate
Figure 5.5.18 - Y2 SW Beam Flange (-2.24%)

134
The outer flange of the west column yielded to stage Y3 during a cycle of 1.39% and -
2.54% drift and 348 and -156 kips. This was noted by the increased flaking of the
vertical yield lines in the tension excursion of the brace and the increase in flaking
during the compression excursion. Figure 5.519 shows the extent of yielding at this
stage. As is shown the yield lines cover the width of the flange over a length of length
approximately equal to the depth of the member. In addition, the state of buckling as
shown in Figure 5.5.15 for the NE column reached a state of B2 buckling. This
occurred during the tensile excursion of the same cycle.
Figure 5.5.19 - Y3 Outer Flange West Column (1.39%)
Compressive brace failure (BF) occurred in the brace at -2.57% drift and -149 kips.
The south beam flange also buckled to state B2 at the same drift. Additionally, the web,
in the area adjacent to flange buckling, reached buckling stage B1. The state of the
south beam at this drift is shown in Figure 5.5.20.
135
SW Gusset Plate
Beam Web Buckling
Figure 5.5.20 - B1 South Beam Flange (-2.57%)
During the final complete cycle the maximum out-of-plane displacement at the center of
the brace reached 14-in. In the same cycle the south bolt of the NW shear connection
sheared. Both of these occurred at -3.00% drift and -146 kips applied load. The bolt
sheared as shown in Section 5.2. It is believed that this fracture occurred due to the
added rotational restraint provided by the load beam. Additionally, the inner flange of
the north beam adjacent to the gusset plate yielded to yield state Y1.
During the tension excursion of the final cycle the brace began to tear at 1.19% drift and
192 kips. This was followed by a loss in load and an increase in drift. The brace
completely tore at 1.60% drift and 208 kips applied load. Complete tearing of the brace
was considered the overall failure mechanism of the system.
5.5.8 End of Test

Figure 5.5.21 through 5.5.25 show performance states that were not seen in the previous
tests. Figure 5.5.21 shows the state of the SW gusset plate at the end of testing. The
figure shows the development of a hinge line at the end of the brace. This line
developed as the deformed out-of-plane and then straightened repeatedly. Similar
behavior was also noted in the NE gusset plate.
136
SW Gusset Plate
Figure 5.5.21 - Y4 SW Gusset Plate (E.O.T.)
Figure 5.5.22 shows the state of the east column at the end of testing. The figure shows
large deformations in the column flange. The bending in the flange formed at larger
drifts and increased as yielding increased. Similar behavior was noted in the south
beam as shown in Figure 5.5.20. Additionally, the web of the column buckled adjacent
to the gusset plate, as shown in Figure 5.5.23. This inelastic behavior occurred as the
deformations of the column flange increased.
NE Gusset Plate
Figure 5.5.22 - Y4 and B3 East Column Flange (E.O.T.)

137
East Column Web
Figure 5.5.23 - B2 East Column Web (E.O.T.)
Similar yield of that shown in Figures 5.5.24 and 5.5.25 was seen in the outer flange of
the west column in specimen HSS-02. However, the figure shows that as the drift
increased the yield deformation became more severe. Figure 5.5.25 shows that this type
of yield also occurs in the outer flange of the east column at larger drifts. In both
figures both diagonal and vertical yield lines are visible. Diagonal yield lines in the
west column would form during the compression excursion whereas the vertical yield
lines would form during the tension excursions. The opposite holds true for the east
column.
Figure 5.5.24 - Y4 Outer Flange West Column (E.O.T.)

138
Figure 5.5.25 - Y3 Outer Flange East Column (E.O.T.)
5.6 HSS-04
Improved ductility of specimen HSS-03 was attributed to the increase of yielding in the
gusset plate and the reduction in rotational restraint provided to the HSS tubular brace.
HSS-04 was designed with a shorter brace-to-gusset connection to slightly increase the
expected yielding in the gusset plate. Also, the clearance requirement was adjusted to
8t using the elliptical definition. This was done in order to decrease the buckling
capacity of the gusset plate as well as improving constructability. This specimen was
subjected to 35 complete cycles. The inelastic action of the frame consisted of buckling
and yielding of the brace and yielding of the gusset plates and beams, and columns.
The overall failure of the system was a result of fracture of the brace. This failure
occurred during the tension excursion of the brace. The inelastic behavior of the frame
was more severe than HSS-03. The peak results are shown in Table 5.6.1.
139
5.6.2 and the corrected force-drift response is shown in Figure 5.6.3. The maximum
values of force represent the limits of the specimen. The reversal of drift and load
shown during the last compression excursion is where the frame was brought back to a
displacement that allowed for the replacement of a bolt in the NW shear connection.
The reversal of load in the last tension excursion is where the frame has started to return
to the zero point but was manually loaded to failure.
140

141
5.6.2 Drift Range 1 (-0.00% to -0.30%)

Yielding state Y1 was observed in both gusset plates at 0.19% drift and 130 kips
applied load. Yielding was seen in the form of initial flaking of the whitewash at the
end of the brace as well as small amounts of adjacent the side of the brace.
Brace buckling state B1 was observed at -0.25% drift and -144 kips applied force. Out-
5.6.3 Drift Range 2 (-0.30% to -0.85%)

At 0.24% drift and 161 kips the north beam adjacent to the gusset plate yielded initial to
state Y1. Flaking of the whitewash was observed on both faces of the inner flange
adjacent to the gusset plate.
142
Small rotations of the NW shear connection were observed at -0.33% drift and -160
kips. This was noted by small amounts of flaking of the whitewash around the bolts.
Additional yielding of the gusset plate was seen at -0.42% drift and -161 kips. Flaking
of the whitewash was noted in the corners of the SW gusset plate adjacent the beam and
column.
Initial yielding (Y1) NE gusset plate corners was observed at -0.50% drift and -158
kips. This was noted in a similar fashion to the SW gusset plate in the previous drift
level. The SW gusset plate also yielded the end of the brace. Yield lines were observed
at the brace end by increased flaking of the whitewash. These yield lines formed
perpendicular to the brace, as shown in Figure 5.6.4.
Perpendicular Yield Lines
Brace End
At 0.44% drift and 261 kips, the NE gusset yielded to state Y3 at the end of the brace.
This was determined by the increased flaking of tension yield lines over a majority of
the gusset plate as shown in Figure 5.6.5. Additionally, the column base of the east
column began to buckle (B1). This was noted by initial bending of the top half of the
143
outer column flange. Initial yielding (Y1) of the inner flange of the south beam was
also noted in the area adjacent the gusset plate.
Figure 5.6.5 - Y3 NE Gusset Plate (0.44%)
At -0.64% drift and -156 kips the brace reach buckling stage B2. An out-of-plane
deformation of 5.13-in. was measured at the center of the brace. The SW gusset plate
reached yield state Y3 at the end of the brace at the same compressive peak. This was
noted by the increase of flaking of the whitewash perpendicular to the end of the brace
as shown in Figure 5.6.6.
144
The north beam yielded initial (Y1) at the end of the load beam at 0.55% drift and 292
kips applied load. This was noted by the flaking of white wash on both faces of the
outer flange in this area.
5.6.4 Drift Range 3 (-0.85% to -1.50%)

The inner flange of the east column yielded to state Y2 at 0.72% drift and 324 kips.
This was observed by the flaking of whitewash in the area around the gusset plate.
Flaking of the whitewash revealed vertical yield lines at the top and bottom of the inner
flange as well as diagonal lines extending away from the gusset plate. Similar flaking
was observed on both faces of this flange. The north beam adjacent to the load beam
reached states Y2 and B1. Flaking of the whitewash increased over the web as shown
in Figure 5.6.7.
145
Load
Beam
Beam Web Flaking
Figure 5.6.7 - Y2 North Beam by Load Beam (-0.72%)
Yielding in the NE gusset plate propagated to from the brace end to both corners of the
gusset plate at 0.85% drift and 331. A majority of the yield lines were in the area along
the assumed Whitmore width. This was considered yield state Y3 for both corners of
the gusset plate. The small areas of the whitewash had completely flaked of in the SW
gusset plate at the brace end. This was considered yield state Y4 for this area.
Buckling of the north beam flange increased to B2 at this same drift and load. This was
observed by an increase in the bent shape of the flange at the end of the load beam. The
deformation of the flange had displaced approximately a distance equal to the thickness
of the flange at the peak of the curve. Yielding of the inner flange of the east column
also increased to state Y3. Yielding was concentrated to an area as shown in Figure
5.6.8.
146
NE Gusset
Figure 5.6.8 - Y3 NE Column (0.85%)
In the compression excursion of the same cycle at -1.46% drift and -170 kips applied
load yielding of the SW gusset plate had propagated to both corners of the gusset plate.
This was considered yield state Y3 for both corners. The outer flange of the west
column initially yielded (Y1) at -1.46% -170 kips. This was noted by the initial flaking
of the whitewash vertically at the top and bottom of the column flanges as well as
diagonally across the flange.
5.6.5 Drift Range 4 (-1.50% to -2.00%)

The inner flange of the east column yielded to Y4 at 0.97% drift and 331 kips. This was
observed by small areas where the whitewash had completely flaked off adjacent the
gusset plate. The web of the north beam in the area next to the load beam also buckled
to state B1. This was noted by the onset of visible bending in the web.
At -1.78% drift and -170 kips the outer flange of the west column yielded to state Y2.
Flaking of both the vertical and diagonal yield lines increased covered approximately
half of the flange width and depth.
147
5.6.6 Drift Range 5 (-2.00% to -3.10%)
Small areas of whitewashed had completely flaked off in the corner areas of the SW
gusset plate adjacent the beam and column at 1.13% drift and 331 kips. This signified
that yield state Y4 had been reached in these areas. Initial bending of the inner flange
of the east column was observed the same drift. This was considered buckling state B1.
Initial column uplift was also observed at this drift. Yielding of the column base had
increased at this drift. Flaking of the whitewash covered most of the flange width of the
outer flange and covered a depth of approximately the depth of the column. This was
considered yield state Y3.
At -2.20% drift and -168 kips the bent shape of the brace began to pinch signifying
buckling stage B3 had been reached. Additionally, the inner beam flange in the north
beam adjacent to the gusset plate yielded to state Y2. Flaking of the whitewash was
observed as diagonal lines extending away from the free edge of the gusset plate.
Flaking of the whitewash on the outer flange of the west column increased over a larger
area as shown in Figure 5.6.9 indicating yield state Y3.
Figure 5.6.9 - Y3 Outer Flange West Column (-2.20%)
At 1.33% drift and 314 kips the bent shape of the outer flange of the north beam began
to pinch indicating buckling state B3. At the same time the beam flange yielded to state
148
Y4. Flaking of the whitewash on the inner flange of the east column increased at the
same drift with large areas where the whitewash had completely flaked off signifying
yielding state Y5 in this area. Deformations of the same flange increased causing
bending in the flange greater than the thickness of the flange. Therefore, the column in
this area had reached buckling state B2.
The brace failed in compression at -2.46% drift and -158 kips. This was noted by the
onset of local deformations at the midspan of the brace. At the same drift weld cracking
was observed both the SW and NE gusset plate connections. Small cracks
approximately 1-in. long had formed in the bottom fillet welds adjacent the columns.
While loading the frame to -2.55% drift and -146 kips the south bolt of the NW shear
connection sheared. As a result, the frame was unloaded to allow the replacement of
the sheared bolt before resuming the test. Once the peak drift was reached the
maximum out-of-plane displacement measured in the center of the brace was
approximately 15.90-in. Yielding state Y5 was also observed both gusset plates at this
drift. Large areas of flaking were noted in the area of hinging as shown in Figures
5.6.10 and 5.6.11. Additionally, initial bending of both flanges in the west column
adjacent the gusset plate was observed signifying bucking state B1.
149
Compression Hinge Line

Tension Yield Lines
Figure 5.6.11 - Y5 NE Gusset Plate (E.O.T.)
completely tore at 1.84% drift and 226 kips applied load. Fracture of the brace was
considered the ultimate failure mode of the system.
150
5.6.7 End of Test
In contrast to specimen HSS-03, the inelastic behavior of the south beam of this
specimen was not as severe. The inelastic action was limited to yielding of the beam
flange at the gusset plate edge, which was more similar to the behavior seen in HSS-02.
However, the outer flange of the north beam sustained more damage as seen in Figure
5.6.12. This figure shows the bent shape of the flange at the end of testing.
Additionally, the beam web had also buckles. This damage is contributed to the test
setup and would not be expected in real structure.
Figure 5.6.12- B3 North Beam Final State (E.O.T.)
In contrast to the previous tests buckling of the column base was not observed.
However, the column flanges yielded to yield state Y4 as shown in Figure 5.6.15. As
discussed, column uplift was still observed in this specimen.
151
Outer Flange of East Column
Channel Assembly
Figure 5.6.13 - Y4 Column Flange (E.O.T.)
Increased yielding was observed in the outer flanges of both columns as shown in
Figures 5.6.14 and 5.7.15. As shown in Figure 5.6.15 the yield pattern is slightly
different than observed in the previous tests. This is attributed to out-of-plane
deformations of the NE corner of the frame towards the strong floor. The figures also
show that yielding state Y5 was reached by the end of the test.
Figure 5.6.14 - Y5 Outer Flange of West Column (E.O.T.)

152
Figure 5.6.15 - Y5 Outer Flange of East Column (E.O.T.)
Figures 5.6.16 through 5.6.20 show additional pictures illustrating the state of the east and west
columns at the end of testing. The figures show that similar performance states were observed
in this test as in specimen HSS-03. However, yielding and buckling have increased. The
figures also indicate the initial development of plastic hinges adjacent to the gusset plate.
Figure 5.6.16 demonstrates how inelastic deformations in the column progressed through the
depth of the column.
NE Gusset Plate
Figure 5.6.16 - B1 East Column (E.O.T.)
153
NE Gusset Plate
Figure 5.6.17 - B2 Inner Column Flange (E.O.T.)
NE Gusset Plate
Figure 5.6.18 - Y5 Inner Flange East Column (E.O.T.)
Cap Plate
East Column Web
Figure 5.6.19 - B2 East Column Web (E.O.T.)

154
Figure 5.6.20 - B1 and Y4 Inner Flange West Column (E.O.T.)
As with HSS-03, bolt-hole elongation was observed in the beams in the shear
connections. Figure 5.6.21 shows the bolt pattern in the north beam. As can be seen in
the figure elongation is more severe at the south end of the bolt pattern and decreases to
the minimum at the north end. In contrast, minimal inelastic behavior was visible in the
shear plates as shown in Figure 5.6.22.
155
South North
Figure 5.6.21 - North Beam Bolt Hole Elongation (E.O.T.)
Figure 5.6.22 - North Shear Plate (E.O.T.)
5.7 HSS-05
The design of this specimen resembled that of HSS-03 except that a smaller weld size
was used to examine the alternate weld design approach discussed in Chapter 3. Also,
the actual thickness of the gusset plates used for this specimen was 3/8-in. Due to the fit
up of the north beam in this test, the bolt holes that are used to connect the frame to the
load beam were drilled off center on the beam flange, as shown in Figure 5.7.1, leaving
only about 1/2-in. of free edge clearance in the top row of bolts. In order to prevent bolt
tear out, a stiffener plate was welded to the flange similar to HSS-03. This test
specimen was subjected to 38 complete cycles. The inelastic action of the frame
consisted of buckling and yielding of the brace and yielding of the gusset plates and
beams, and columns. The overall failure of the system was a result of fracture of the
156
brace. The inelastic behavior of the frame was less severe than HSS-04. However, this
specimen sustained more damage to the gusset plate welds than specimens HSS-02
through HSS-04. The weld damage is summarized in Table 5.7.2. Values of the length
of each weld crack are provided in this table in units of inches. Each weld crack
initiated at the free edge of the gusset plate and propagated away from the free edge of
the gusset plate. Failure of the overall system occurred during the tension excursion of
cycle 39. The peak results are shown in Table 5.7.1.
Figure 5.7.1 - North Beam Bolt-Hole Pattern (HSS-05)

157
Table 5.7.2 - Weld Damage Summary
The maximum drift was 2.45% and the minimum drift was -3.09%, with a maximum
applied load of 354 kips and a minimum of -161 kips. Figure 5.7.2 shows the loading
history for this specimen. A plot of the applied force is shown in Figure 5.7.3 and the
corrected force drift response is shown in Figure 5.7.4.

158
Figure 5.7.4 - HSS-05 Force Drift Response

159
5.7.2 Drift Range 1 (0.00% to -0.30%)
No performance states were observed at this drift range.
5.7.3 Drift Range 2 (-0.30% to -0.85%)

Brace buckling state B1 was observed at -0.31% drift and -144 kips applied force. Out-
Initial yielding (Y1) was observed in the NE gusset plate at 0.31% drift and 197 kips.
This was observed at the brace end by flaking of the whitewash as with other
specimens. Small rotations were observed in the NW shear connection at -0.47% drift
and -148 kips.
Initial yielding (Y1) was observed in the SW gusset plate at 0.49% drift and 267 kips.
This yielding occurred at the end of the brace. At the compression peak of the same
cycle at -0.70% drift and -147 kips brace buckling progressed to state B2 with a
measured out-of-plane displacement of 5.56-in. at the midpoint of the brace. During
this same cycle performance states B1 and Y1 of the column bases were observed. As
with previous specimens this was in the outer flanges of both columns. The
performance states were observed in the compression excursion for the east column and
the tension excursion for the west column.
5.7.4 Drift Range 3 (-0.85% to -1.50%)

The north beam in the area of the load beam yielded to yield state Y1 at 0.86% drift and
336 kips. The behavior was similar to HSS-04. At the same drift diagonal yield lines
had formed over a majority of the NE gusset plate (Y3) at the end of the brace as shown
in Figure 5.7.5. The corner of the same gusset plate yielded initially (Y1) in the corner
adjacent the column. Additionally, yielding of the inner flange of the east column
initiated (Y1) in the area adjacent to the gusset plate.
160
Figure 5.7.5 - Y3 NE Gusset Plate (0.86%)
At the compression peak of the same cycle at -1.19% drift and -151 kips yielding of the
inner flange of the south beam had initiated (Y1).
During the next cycle at the same drift level the outer flange of the west column began
to yield. This occurred at 0.86% drift and 324 kips and was noted by the flaking of
whitewash in a similar patter to previous specimens. At -1.22% drift and -151 kips
initial column uplift was observed.
5.7.5 Drift Range 4 (-1.50% to -2.00%)

At 1.01% drift and 350 kips the corner of the SW gusset plate adjacent the column
showed signs of initial yielding (Y1) at this drift level. Similar yielding (Y1) was
observed in the NE gusset plate adjacent the beam. The yielding of the inner flange of
the east column also reached yield state Y2. Flaking of the whitewash had spread over
an area equal to approximately the width of the flange in both directions away from the
free edge of the gusset plate. Additionally, the north beam reached several performance
states at this drift. These include: Y1 of the inner flange adjacent the gusset plate, B1
161
of the outer flange adjacent the load beam, and Y3 of the outer flange adjacent the load
beam. Yielding of the inner flange was noted by the flaking of the whitewash in the
area around the free edge of the gusset plate. Initial bending of the outer flange was
observed along with propagation of whitewash flaking. The flaking had spread over an
as shown in Figure 5.7.6.
At -1.57% drift and -157 kips, small areas of complete flaking were noticed in the SW
gusset plate at the end of the brace. These areas of flaking formed along the region
where the gusset plate was hinging as the brace deformed out-of-plane. This state was
considered yield state Y4.
North Beam Load Beam
Figure 5.7.6 - Y3 Outer Flange North Beam (1.01%)
As indicated in Table 5.7.2 initial weld cracking began at 1.17% drift and 354 kips. The
first observed weld cracking was in the top weld of the NE gusset plate adjacent the
beam and was approximately 0.75-in. long.
162
At -1.95% drift and -161 kips, the NE gusset reached yield state Y4 at the end of the
brace. This marked by the flaking of whitewash in small patches in this region.
Yielding also initiated (Y1) in the corner of the SW gusset plate adjacent to the beam.
Weld tearing increased further as indicated in Table 5.7.2. The bottom fillet weld in the
NE gusset plate adjacent both the column and the beam cracked. Additionally, weld
cracking was noted in the SW gusset plate in the bottom fillet weld adjacent the beam.
The outer flange of the west column yielded to state Y2 in a similar fashion as with
previous specimens.
5.7.6 Drift Range 5 (-2.00% to 3.10%)

The outer flange of the north beam buckled to state B2 at 1.35% drift and 345 kips.
This was noted by increased deformations of the flange at the end of the load beam. At
the same drift the inner flange of the east column yielded to state Y3 and bending was
visible indicating buckling state B1.
The buckling of the brace reached buckling state B3 at -2.34% drift and -161 kips. This
was noted by the pinching of the bent shape of the deformed shape. Increased yielding
of the SW gusset plate was observed at the same drift. At this point in the test, a visible
hinge-line had formed in the plate. This was formed by large out-of-plane rotations
caused by out-of-plane deformations in the brace. As shown in Figure 5.7.7 the
whitewash had completely flaked off in a small, semi elliptical line at the end of the
brace. In contrast to other specimens, the formation of other yield lines was limited.
Additionally, the crack length of the weld in the NE gusset plate adjacent the beam
increased to 1.75-in.
163
At 1.36% drift and 326 kips, the outer flange of the west column yielded to state Y3
with a similar yield line pattern as with previous specimens. In the compression
excursion of the same cycle at -2.34% drift and -155 kips the both cracks in the welds in
the NE gusset plate increased in length to 2.25-in. adjacent the beam at the bottom and
2.0-in. adjacent the column both top and bottom welds.
Yielding of the inner flange of the north beam increased to state Y2 at 1.56% drift and
341 kips. Yielding patterns were similar to those seen in previous tests. Additionally
another phenomenon was noticed in both gusset plates as shown in Figure 5.7.8. The
figure shows the permanent bending observed in the gusset plate while the brace was
loaded in tension in at 1.56% drift. This deformation was due to the large rotations of
the plate as the brace buckles out-of-plane as shown in Figure 5.7.9. As the out-of-
plane rotations in the plate became large the permanent bending in the plate formed as
the brace straightened out when loaded in tension.
164
Figure 5.7.8 - Gusset Plate Bending
Figure 5.7.9 - Gusset Plate Rotation

In addition to these performance states the crack lengths in the welds in the NE gusset
plate increased at 1.56% drift. A crack length of 2-in. and 2.75-in. was observed in the
top and bottom welds respectively adjacent the beam. The top weld adjacent the
column cracked to a length of 3.75-in.
The brace began to buckle locally at the midspan at -2.74% drift and -143 kips
indicating compressive brace failure. At the same drift bending in the outer flange of
the west column was observed signifying buckling state B1.
Initial weld cracking was observed in the SW gusset plate in the top weld at 1.58% and
316 kips. A crack had formed in the weld 1-in. long. Additionally, the crack in the
165
column weld in the NE gusset plate increased in length to 5-in in the top and the beam
side weld increased in length to 3.25-in. in the bottom.
The bending of the inner flange of the east column increased at 1.80% drift and 325
kips applied force. The deformation of the bottom half of the flange had increased to
state B2. In addition the SE shear connection rotation is shown in Figure 5.7.10 at the
maximum observed rotation at this cycle during the peak of the tension excursion. As
shown, the connection would tend to pivot about the south bolt.
South Bolt
Figure 5.7.10 - SE Shear Connection Rotation (1.80%)
The top and bottom column weld in the NE gusset plate failed at -3.08% drift and -132
kips. This was marked by crack lengths of approximately 13-in. in both welds. At this
peak the brace reached a maximum out-of-plane displacement of 17.0-in. measured at
the midpoint of the brace. At the same drift the outer flange of the west column buckled
to state B2 and initial bending of the inner flange of the south beam marked buckling
state B1.
completely tore at 2.05% drift and 193 kips applied load. Complete tearing of the brace
was considered the overall failure mechanism of the system. The brace failure is
166
illustrated in Figure 5.7.11. The figure shows that the progression of tearing is similar
to the other specimens in which the brace fracture. However, as shown in the figure,
the brace fractured diagonally across the brace instead of perpendicular to the brace as
with previous specimens. This is attributed to the tearing of the NE column weld,
which caused the brace to be loaded with a slight eccentricity to the longitudinal axis of
the brace. It is also important to note that the fracture of the brace occurred slightly off
set from the mid-point. Again this is attributed to weld tearing, which changes the
support conditions of the brace.
Figure 5.7.11 - Brace Fracture
5.7.7 End of Test

The state of the NE gusset plate is shown in Figure 5.7.12. As is shown the yielding in
this plate is less sever to that in the SW gusset plate. This is attributed to the severe
weld damage in the gusset plate. The weld cracking helped to relieve the out-of-plate
rotational demands placed on the plate thus reducing yielding.
167
Figure 5.7.12 - Y2 NE Gusset Plate (E.O.T.)
Figures 5.7.13 through 5.7.20 illustrate the weld tearing of the fillet welds connecting
both gusset plates to the frame. Final crack lengths are provided in Table 5.7.2.
Figure 5.7.13- SW Gusset Weld by Beam-Bottom (E.O.T.)

168
Figure 5.7.14 - SW Gusset Weld by Beam-Top (E.O.T.)
Figure 5.7.15- SW Gusset Weld by Column-Bottom (E.O.T.)
Figure 5.7.16 - SW Gusset Weld by Column-Top (E.O.T.)

169
Figure 5.7.17 - NE Gusset Weld by Beam-Bottom (E.O.T.)
Figure 5.7.18 - NE Gusset Weld by Beam-Top (E.O.T.)
Figure 5.7.19 - NE Gusset Weld by Column-Bottom (E.O.T.)

170
Figure 5.7.20 - NE Gusset Weld by Column-Top (E.O.T.)
Yielding and buckling of the flange the columns was less severe than in HSS-03 and
HSS-04. This was attributed to the fracturing of the gusset plate weld as well as the
added out-of-plane supports in the NE and SW corners of the frame. These supports
prevented out-of-plane deformations of the corners. Typical inelastic behavior of the
columns is shown in Figures 5.7.21 through 5.7.23 for both the west and east column.
The state of the column bases resembled that of specimen HSS-04.
Figure 5.7.21 - Y3 and B1 Inner Flange East Column (E.O.T.)

171
Figure 5.7.22 - Y2 Outer Flange East Column (E.O.T.)
Figure 5.7.23 - B2 West Column (E.O.T.)
Figure 5.7.24 shows the state of the south beam at the end of testing. The figure shows
a downward rotation of the beam along the longitudinal axis of the beam. This is
attributed to the downward vertical force applied from brace due to out-of-plane
deformations in the brace.
172
Figure 5.7.24 - B2 and Y3 South Beam (E.O.T.)
The final state of the north beam at the end of the load beam is shown in Figure 5.7.25.
When compared to the inelastic behavior of the north beam in HSS-04 the inelastic
action in this specimen was more spread out and less severe. This is attributed in part to
the added stiffener as well as the added out-of-plane support in the NE corner.
Figure 5.7.25 - North Beam by Load Beam (Final)
The state of NW and SE shear connections at the end of testing is shown in Figures
5.7.26 and 5.7.27 respectively. As discussed, the connections had a tendency to pivot
about the outer bolt. This caused larger levels of bolt-hole elongation to the inner bolt
hole as shown in the figures. As with the previous specimens bolt-hole elongation was
not observed in the shear plate of these connections.
173
North
Inner Bolt Hole Outer Bolt Hole
Figure 5.7.26 - NW Shear Connection (E.O.T.)
Outer Bolt Hole

Inner Bolt Hole
North
Figure 5.7.27 - SE Shear Connection (E.O.T.)
In contrast to specimens HSS-03 and HSS-04, none of the bolts fractured in this
specimen. As mentioned in the Section 5.5.3 the elongation of the bolt holes in the
shear connections was less severe than for HSS-03 and HSS-04. This suggests that the
demand placed on these connections was less even though the drifts and applied forces
were similar to the other specimens. In addition, the use of the additional support in the
NE corner of the frame helped reduce the prying force placed on the connection by
helping the beam remain more planar during testing. However, the bolts did sustain
bearing deformation as shown in Figure 5.7.28.
174
Figure 5.7.28 - NW Shear Connection Bolt (E.O.T.)
5.8 Performance State Comparison

This section provides figures and plots comparing the behavior of the five specimens
discussed. Figure 5.8.1 shows a hysteresis loop for specimens HSS-01 through HSS-05
at similar drift levels. This figure shows that the specimens have very similar response
envelopes shapes. However, each progressive test has a longer tail at each end.
Figure 5.8.1 - Force-Drift Response Envelopes

175
Figures 5.8.2 through 5.8.6 are force drift response curves plotted at the same scale for
comparison. The figures show how ductility improved for each test.
Figure 5.8.2 - Force-Drift Response (HSS-01)

176

177
Tables 5.8.1 and 5.8.2 provide data for comparison for each test. Table 5.8.1 provides
maximum and minimum data for drift ratio and applied load. The maximum out-of-
plane deformation of the brace is also provided as measured at the center of the brace.
The ultimate failure mode of the system is also provided. Table 5.8.2 provides the
yielding mechanisms and failure modes for each test for given compressive drift ratios.
Table 5.8.1 - Specimen Peak Value Comparison

178
Table 5.8.2 - Performance State Comparison
179
Chapter 6
Interpretation/Analysis of Results
6.0 Introduction
This chapter provides interpretation and evaluation of the recorded data. Several
calculations were used to interpret the data and are presented in Section 6.1. This is
followed by a discussion of the individual SCBF components. Section 6.2 discusses the
behavior of the brace. Section 6.3 covers behavior of the gusset plate. Section 6.4
presents a general overview of the behavior of the beams and columns. Section 6.5
provides a discussion of the shear connections. Section 6.6 presents an overview of the
system response. The same notation that was used in Chapter 5 for performance states
and location of performance states will be used throughout this chapter.
6.1 Calculations
Methods for calculating corrected story drift were discussed in Chapter 5 Section 2.
Other calculations were made in order interpret the data and these calculations will be
presented in this section. The calculations include:
Energy Dissipation
Moments
Shears
Axial Force
Biaxial Stresses (Gusset Plate HSS-01)
Corrected Out-of-Plane Displacements of the Brace (HSS-03 through HSS-05)
Corrected Brace Elongation
Rotations (Connection and Gusset Plate)
180
Energy dissipation was calculated using equation 6.1. This equation calculates the area
enclosed by the hysteresis loops, when used for a complete loop. This area is shown as
the gray area in Figure 6.1.1.
P + Pi +1
E total = i ( i +1 i ) (6.1)
2
Figure 6.1.1 - Energy Dissipation Calculation
Axial forces (P) were calculated using the average recorded strain multiplied by the
modulus of elasticity and the section area as shown in equation 6.2. Values of strain
recorded are increased by a factor of 100. Therefore, a value of 290 kip/in2 was used for
the modulus of elasticity.
+ b
Pave = a EA (6.2)
2
181
where A is the cross-sectional area of the given member. Moments were calculated
using:
b
M = a EI (6.3)
d member
Where dmember is the member depth and I is the moment of inertia about which the
member is bending. a and b refer to a pair of strain gauges were a is take to be the
east (north) gauge and b is the west (south) gauge for the columns (beams), as shown in
Figure 6.1.2 for the east column. This sign convention indicates that a positive value of
moment implies a moment applied counter-clockwise.
Figure 6.1.2 - Column Strain Gauges
Column shears were then found by taking the difference of the north and south moment
divided by the distance between the gauges. The distance between the gauge pairs is
given for each specimen in Appendix C.
M M south
V = north (6.4)
L
182
Moments along the length of the column were found assuming a linear change in
moment along the length of the column. The slope of the moment was related to the
shear in the column.
The axial force in the brace was determined using two methods. The first method is the
same as equation 6.5 only using the average strain measured in four strain gauges. The
second method is shown in equation 6.6. In this case, the brace force is calculated by
subtracting the calculated values of the base shear in the columns from the recorded
value of applied load from the load cell. This value is then divided by the sine of the
brace angle which was assumed to be a constant value of 45 degrees.
+ 2 + 3 + 4
PBrace = 1 EA (6.5)
4
(P
Applied VColumn )
PBrace = (6.6)
sin( 45)
Plate stresses (HSS-01) were calculated using the special case of Hooke's Law for plane
stress:
x =
E
( x + y ) (6.7)
(
1 2 )
y =
E
( y + x ) (6.8)
(
1 2 )
where is Poisson's ratio and was assumed to be 0.3. Equations 6.2 through 6.8 are
only valid for elastic strain.
Out-of-plane movement of the brace was calculated using the measured vertical and
horizontal displacement of the center of the brace. The instrumentation configuration is
183
shown in Figure 6.1.3. These instruments were used for specimens HSS-03 through
HSS-05. Therefore, the calculation of out-of-plane displacement of the brace only
applies to these specimens. The actual out-of-plane displacement of the brace is
calculated using the triangulation of the devices as shown in Figures 6.1.3 and 6.1.4.
The correction can be made by constructing a triangle with sides a, b and c. Where a is
19.769-in. and remains constant, b is equal to 10.5-in. plus any change in length
measured in the vertical direction, and c is 16.75-in. plus any change in length measured
in the horizontal direction. In order to construct the triangle it is first rotated an angle
1, such that side a is oriented horizontally as shown in Figure 6.1.4. The next step is to
set the first two vertices of the triangle to (0, 0) and (a, 0) as shown in the figure. The
third vertex (hm, vm) is found solving:
hm 2 + vm 2 = b 2 (6.9)
(hm a )2 + vm 2 = c 2 (6.10)
simultaneously to obtain
a2 + b2 c2
hm = (6.11)
2a
( a + b + c )(a b + c )(a + b c )(a + b + c )

vm = (6.12)
2a
The angle 2, as shown in the figure, is found using:
19.769 hm
2 = tan 1 (6.13)
vm
The values hm' and vm' are then found using:

184
hm' = (16.75 + horizontal )sin (1 + 2 ) (6.14)
vm' = (16.75 + horizontal ) cos(1 + 2 ) (6.15)
Finally the frame translation at the midpoint of the brace can be found using:
h = hm'16.75 (6.16)
Figure 6.1.3 - Brace Out-of-Plane Measurement Schematic

185
Figure 6.1.4 - Brace Out-of-Plane Measurement Correction
Corrections were made for the brace elongation measurements. This was due to the
way in which the devices were attached. Figure 6.1.5 shows a schematic of the method
in which the device was attached.
Figure 6.1.5 - Brace Elongation Measurement

186
Measurements recorded while the brace was straight were the actual change in length.
However, as the brace deformed out-of-plane both the device and the tie-off point
would rotate with the brace affecting the measurement. This is illustrated in Figure
6.1.6. This figure shows one end of the brace in the original position (hidden line) and
in the rotated position (solid line). The assumed hinge point is in the gusset plate a
short distance away from the end of the brace. As the brace hinges about this point the
distance between the two hinge points at either end of the brace decreases. However,
the actual change in length varies from the measured change in length as shown.
In order to correct for this, it was assumed that at all times the deformed shape of the
brace is triangular. By doing this it was possible to use the measured out-of-plane
measurement at the midpoint of the brace to correct the measurement of brace
shortening. Figure 6.1.7 illustrates three variables Xb, Yb and b. The figure is a more
detailed illustration of the previous figure.
187
The value Yb was known and represents the distance the measurement was taken above
the centerline of the gusset plate. The value b was calculated based on the out-of-plane
deformation of the brace and Xb is found using the previous two values. The brace
elongation correction was done using the following equations.

vm'
X b = Yb (6.17)
LBrace
2
Brace = l o 2 X (6.18)
Where vm' is the value calculated from equation 6.15, LBrace is the original length
measured end-to-end length of the brace, and lo is the measured change in length of the
brace. Rotations of the shear connections were found using the difference of the
devices divided by the depth between them as shown in the following equation.
188
a b
rotation = (6.19)
dd
Figure 6.1.8 illustrates these variables.
Figure 6.1.8 - Beam and Column Rotations
Gusset plate rotation was assumed to be the average of the rotations measured near the
free edge of the gusset plate. Rotations of the gusset plate were found using the
measured change in out-of-plane displacement divided by the distance away from a
known fixed point of the gusset plate to the measurement device, as illustrated in Figure
6.1.9. Therefore the average rotation of the gusset plate was calculated using:
out of plane _ 1 out of plane _ 2

+
db dc
plate = (6.20)
2
where out-of-plane is the measured out-of-plane displacement at both free edges and db
and dc are the distances from the beam and column faces to the device respectively.
189
Figure 6.1.9 - Gusset Plate Rotations
6.2 Brace Behavior

As discussed in Chapter 5, the behavior of the braces was fairly similar from one
specimen to the other. This section presents comparative data of the behavior of the
brace. Data presented in this section includes:
Performance State
Brace Axial Force
Moments
Out-of-Plane Deformations
Force Displacement Response
6.2.1 Performance State Comparison

Table 6.2.1 provides a summary of the brace performance states for each specimen.
The values of applied load are given in kips and the drift ratio is given as a percentage.
Initial yielding was determined at the drift where the calculated force in the brace using
equation 6.8 was approximately equal to the theoretical yield force of the brace. This
was also verified by the measured value of brace elongation. Using this value to
estimate the value of strain showed that theoretical strains were close to the yield value.
This estimation was further verified by the value of applied force. That is, at higher
190
values of positive drift the increase in applied force leveled off at the same instance
yielding occurred.
Table 6.2.1 - Brace Performance State Comparison
The table shows that initial buckling occurred at approximately the same drift and
applied load for specimens HSS-02 through HSS-05. The data also shows that buckling
state B2 was reached at about the same drift and load for gusset plates of the same size.
However, buckling state B3 occurred at larger drift levels in specimens HSS-03 through
HSS-05 with a more flexible gusset plate. This indicates that smaller more flexible
gusset plates allow the brace to bend over a longer length, which allows for larger out-
of-plane brace deflections prior to pinching of the bent shape and the onset of local
deformations at the midspan of the brace. The table also indicates that the larger gusset
plate increases the stiffness of the system. This is shown by specimen HSS-01 where
larger values of applied load were reached at lower drift levels. Thus the gusset plate
seems to affect not only the initial buckling behavior of the brace but the fracture life as
well.
6.2.2 Brace Axial Force

Table 6.2.2 provides a summary of the maximum axial force in the brace. This table
includes the maximum calculated force (using equations 6.7 and 6.8) in the brace and
the drift ratio at which this maximum force occurred. The load cell reading indicates
the applied load at the same drift the value of the brace force was calculated. The
values indicated as AISC are the theoretical buckling loads calculated according to
AISC Chapter E (1). The actual yield strength of the brace was used in calculating
191
these values. The effective length factor k was taken to be 1.0 for out-of-plane buckling
and the effective length was taken to be the value provided in the table, which is the
total length of the brace as measured from one end of the brace to the other, as shown in
Figure 6.2.1. All values in reference to a force are given in kips. The table shows that
the predicted strength of the brace according to AISC equations is similar to the
measured values using equations 6.7 and 6.8. Therefore, the AISC equations seem to be
adequate in predicting brace strength.
Table 6.2.2 - Maximum Brace Buckling Force Comparison
Figure 6.2.1 - Brace Length
6.2.3 Brace Bending Moments

Moments were calculated using equation 6.3 for in-plane and out-of-plane bending of
the brace using a planar definition of moments. Figure 6.2.2 provides plots of both in-
plane and out-of-plane bending moments for specimen HSS-01 for the duration of the
test when the measured strains were elastic. These plots are typical for all specimens.
As shown in the figure, in-plane brace moments cycle approximately symmetrically
from the compression cycle to the tension cycle and are much smaller than out-of-plane
192
moments at larger drifts. The point on the plot where the out-of-plane bending
moments start to become nonsymmetrical approximately corresponds to the point in the
test where the onset of buckling was observed.
Figure 6.2.2 - Brace Bending Moments (HSS-01)
6.2.4 Brace Out-of-Plane Deformations

As discussed in Chapter 5, large out-of-plane deformations were observed as the brace
was loaded in compression. Figure 6.2.3 shows a plot of the peak out-of-plane
displacement, measured at the center of the brace, against the peak compressive drift for
each drift level for specimens HSS-03 through HSS-05. Out-of-plane deformations
were calculated using equations 6.9 through 6.16. As the figure shows the out-of-plane
displacement increased with each increased drift level. Figure 6.2.4 shows a plot of the
ratio of the maximum out-of-plane displacement over the drift ratio. This plot shows a
rapid increase until about -0.65% drift as indicated by the solid line in the plot. At this
point the rate of increase starts to decrease. In all cases this decrease occurs at buckling
state B2.
193
Figure 6.2.3 - Brace Deformation vs. Drift Ratio
Figure 6.2.4 - Brace Deformation Ratio vs. Drift Ratio

194
6.2.5 Brace Force-Elongation Response
Figure 6.2.5 shows the force-elongation response of the brace for HSS-03. This
response is typical for those seen in specimens HSS-03 through HSS-05.
Instrumentation errors did not allow for this to be accurately calculated for HSS-01 and
HSS-02. Elongation was calculated using equations 6.17 and 6.18. The brace force
was calculated using equation 6.6. As the figure shows the shape of the response is
similar to the response of the system. In contrast to the system response, a steady
degradation in the compressive response as shown in the figure, this is due to the loss of
compressive strength in the brace. Since the same loss of compressive resistance is not
seen in the system response, this indicates that larger demands are being placed on the
other components of the system. That is, the contribution of energy dissipation in the
compression excursion of the system components increases as the brace degrades.
Figure 6.2.5 - Brace Force-Elongation Response (HSS-03)

195
6.3 Gusset Plate Behavior
The performance of the plate varied with changes in geometry and thickness as would
be expected. This section presents comparative data of the behavior of the gusset plate.
Data presented in this section includes:
Performance State
Rotations
Stresses (HSS-01)

Table 6.3.1 provides a summary of the gusset plate performance states for each
specimen. The values of applied load are given in kips and the drift ratio is given as a
percentage.
196
Table 6.3.1 - Gusset Plate Performance State Comparison
As the table shows, the final yield state in the gusset plates was different for each test.
Only specimen HSS-04 achieved yield state Y5. Absence of observed yielding is noted
in HSS-01. As shown in Table 3.6.2 the yield strength of the HSS-01 gusset plates was
approximately twice that of the other gusset plates, which is also more than double the
theoretical yield strength for grade A572 plate steel. Similar yield patterns would be
expected for specimen HSS-01 as those seen in specimen HSS-02. This is due to the
fact that yielding of HSS-02 was more a result of deformation demands than applied
load. This is indicated by the fact that yielding was mainly limited to the corners of the
gusset plate. Another important note is that a considerable portion of the yielding took
place during the compression excursion of the brace at lower levels of applied force.
197
This indicates that much of the yielding is more a result of the deformation in the plate
than the axial forces applied by the brace. This is particularly true at higher yield states
such as Y4 and Y5 where the severe yielding was caused by the hinging of the plate as
the brace deforms out-of-plane.
The table also shows that each specimen sustained some cracking in the welds at
various drift levels. As discussed in Chapter 5, the damage to the welds for specimens
HSS-03 through HSS-04 was minimal. The table also shows that this damage occurs at
relatively large drift levels. It is also important to note that the observed weld failures
occurred in the compression cycle of the brace. This demonstrates that the deformation
demands placed on the plate have a considerable affect of the behavior of the welds.
This is also shown by the fact that much of the weld cracking indicated in Table 6.3.1
occurred in the compression excursion of the brace when the axial load was lower, but
the bending of the plate was larger. For the most part, weld cracking was observed to
correspond to the development of state Y4 in the plate. However, in specimen HSS-01
weld cracking and weld failure were observed without yielding of the gusset plate. This
is due to the weld size as will be discussed.
6.3.2 Gusset Plate Rotations

The maximum rotations of the gusset plate increased with an increase in story drift. At
a certain drift, the rate of increase started to reduce. Figure 6.3.1 shows a plot of the
average out-of-plane rotation of the SW gusset plate for each specimen. The values of
rotation were calculated using equation 6.20 and are plotted against the drift ratio. As
shown, a sharp increase in the rate of increase is shown at the same drift that buckling
of the brace was observed. However, the drift at which the rate increase in the rotation
decreases occurs at a lower drift level than observed in the behavior of the braces.
Figure 6.3.2 shows a plot of the ratio of out-of-plane rotation and the drift against the
drift ratio. As shown in the figure the decrease occurs at approximately -0.40% drift
whereas the brace decreased at approximately 0.65%. The initial point where the rate of
198
increase starts to level for brace buckling occurs at approximately the same drift the rate
of increase in the out-of-plane rotation decreases.
The point in the plot where the out-of-plane rotation sharply increases in specimen
HSS-01 corresponds to weld failure. However, this behavior was not observed for
HSS-05 where severe weld damage was also observed. The gusset plate in HSS-05 was
more flexible which permitted more rotation prior to weld failure. (The NE gusset plate
shows similar behavior.)
Figure 6.3.1 - SW Gusset Plate Rotation

199
Figure 6.3.2 - SW Gusset Plate Rotation Ratio
6.3.3 Gusset Plate Stresses

Strain gauges were placed in a pattern following the clearance lines discussed in
Chapter 3. This pattern is shown in Figure 6.3.3. Gauges 25 through 34 were placed
along the "2t" clearance line and gauges 35 through 40 were positioned along the
proposed elliptical clearance line. Plate stresses were calculated using equations 6.7
and 6.8 and will be referred to as stresses in the X-direction and Y-direction, which are
illustrated in Figure 6.3.3.
200
Figure 6.3.3 - Gusset Plate Strain Gauge Pattern (HSS-01)
Plate stresses cycle fairly symmetrically about zero for approximately the first 25
cycles. The distribution of stresses for gauges 28, 31, 35 and 40 is shown in Figures
6.3.4 and 6.3.5. As shown in Figure 6.3.3 these gauges were placed on the plate in
approximately the same location. Gauges 35 and 40 were placed on the elliptical
clearance line and gauges 28 and 31 in the straight line. Figures 6.3.4 and 6.3.5 shows
that the distribution of stresses to all four gauges is fairly similar for earlier cycles. At
later cycles, as plate bending increases, gauges along the elliptical line show larger
stresses than along the straight line clearance.
201
Figure 6.3.4 - Straight Line vs. Ellipse Comparison (Y-Stresses HSS-01)
Figure 6.3.5 - Straight Line vs. Ellipse Comparison (X-Stresses HSS-01)

202
Figures 6.3.6 through 6.3.11 show plots of the peak stresses for both the x-stresses and
y-stresses for brace compression and brace tension. It is important to note that the yield
strength of the steel was approximately 119 ksi which is higher than values of
calculated stress. This suggests that the plate did not yield which is consistent with
behavior observed in the test. Seven lines are provided in each figure and indicate
various performance states. Table 6.3.2 provides the notation used in the figures.
Table 6.3.2 - Gusset Plate Figure Notation
Figure 6.3.6 - Y-Stresses Brace Compression (HSS-01)

203
Figure 6.3.7 - X-Stresses Brace Compression (HSS-01)
Figure 6.3.8 - Y-Stresses Brace Tension 1 (HSS-01)

204
Figure 6.3.9 - Y-Stresses Brace Tension 2 (HSS-01)
Figure 6.3.10 - X-Stresses Brace Tension 1 (HSS-01)

205
Figure 6.3.11 - X-Stresses Brace Tension 2 (HSS-01)
Figures 6.3.6 and 6.5.7 show a plot of the x-stresses and y-stresses at the peaks of the
compression excursions. The stresses in these plots are the calculated stresses in the top
surface of the gusset plate. As is shown, the stresses are primarily compressive except a
few cases. This is due to bending of the plate, which induces tensile forces in the top
surface of the plate. A large increase in stress is first seen as the brace begins to buckle,
which continue with an increase in plate bending. As the welds crack, the stresses in
the area adjacent the affected weld region reduces. This behavior is particularly
apparent with gauges 25 and 34 which are the gauges measuring strain perpendicular to
the beam and column respectively. As the weld damage increases, the stresses along
the elliptical clearance line increase. (Gauges 35, 37, 38 and Gauges 36, 38, 40) This
suggests that the gusset plate hinges about this line causing an increase in stresses.
The stresses in the corner of the plate adjacent the beam and column are larger than the
other stresses due to the deformations of the frame. The same behavior occurs in the
tension excursion where compressive stresses are present in the corners of the gusset
plate. The figures show that these stresses are larger than the stresses in the other areas
206
of the plate. This behavior is due to the deformations of the frame. Figure 6.3.12
illustrates the deformed shape of the frame in compression and tension.
a) Tension Excursion b) Compression Excursion

Figure 6.3.12 - Deformed Shape of the Frame
As shown in the figure, when the brace is in tension decreases; likewise when the
brace is in compression, increases. The change in the angle is equal to:
= ' (6.21)
This behavior induces large compressive or tensile stresses in the plate and caused
yielding of the gusset plates at the corners in specimens HSS-02 through HSS-05.
Thus, the demands placed on the plate are more a function of the system deformation
than the actual force applied by the brace.
6.4 Beam and Column Behavior

This section presents comparative data of the behavior of the beam and columns. Data
presented in this section includes:
Performance State
Moments
207
Forces
Shears

Table 6.4.1 provides data on the state of the beam and columns at the end of testing.
The notation used in the table matches the notation used in Chapter 5.
Table 6.4.1 - Beam and Column Performance Comparison
As the table indicates the amount of inelastic action in the frame increased from
specimen HSS-01 through HSS-04, which resulted in an increase in drift capacity. At
higher levels of drift, larger demands are placed on the beams and columns. However,
yielding was in part a result of the test setup.
Yielding and buckling in the north beam adjacent the load beam results from the
concentrated force applied by the load beam. The yielding and buckling at the column
base results from pivoting at the column base; as the frame deforms the column base
pivots such that compressive stresses were higher in one flange than the other, which
caused inelastic deformations in the column. The degree of pivoting was dependant on
the fit of the column base at the channel assembly. The addition of a column flange
stiffener (HSS-02 through HSS-05) also helped improve the behavior of the column
bases.
208
Inelastic deformations in the south beam are affected by the restraint provided by the
shear connection to the channel assembly. The out-of-plane restraint system affects the
amount of inelastic behavior in the frame elements. As the table shows the total
inelastic action in the NE corner of the frame for specimen HSS-05 was reduced even
though higher levels of drift were achieved. This is attributed to the out-of-plane
support that was added in the NE corner for this test.
6.4.2 Beam and Column Moments

The distribution of moments is similar for all specimens, which indicates that the
moment distribution is independent of gusset plate properties. As would be expected,
the moments increase with larger drift levels.
Figure 6.4.1 shows the moments for the north beam at the strain gauge location in
specimen HSS-04. The moments shown are due to bending about the strong axis of the
north beam. As shown the beam undergoes a negative moment during the tension
excursion of the brace. The sharp increase in negative moment at later cycles coincides
with the onset of yielding of the north beam. The behavior of the north beam was
described in the previous chapter.
209
Figure 6.4.1 - North Beam Moments (HSS-04)
A similar pattern of bending moments for the south beam is shown in Figure 6.4.2. In
contrast to the north beam, negative bending moments are induced during the
compression excursion of the brace.
Beam moments are fairly similar for the north and south beam at lower drift levels. As
the frame displacement increases a residual positive moment in the south beam becomes
apparent. This phenomenon is attributed to the yielding and buckling of the column
base, which would cause the beam to bend toward the channel assembly when the brace
is in compression.
210
Figure 6.4.2 - South Beam Moments (HSS-04)
6.4.3 Forces and Shears

The axial forces in the columns for each test were similar as those shown in Figures
6.4.3 and 6.4.4. The plots show the change in axial force from the original prestessing
force of 350 kips. As shown in Figure 6.4.3 the initial compression force in the west
column would tend to decrease at larger cycles. This is attributed to inelastic action in
this column, particularly due to local buckling of the flanges at the column base. In
contrast the compressive force in the east column was more symmetric about the initial
prestressing force. As shown in Figure 6.4.4 the forces closely match the forces applied
from the actuator.
211
Figure 6.4.3 - West Column Axial Forces (HSS-04)
Figure 6.4.4 - East Column Axial Forces (HSS-04)
Figure 6.4.5 shows a comparison of the measured axial force in the north beam to the
applied load from the actuator. As is shown the values match very well at lower drift
levels. As the frame deformation increases, however, there is a slight difference as
shown. This is due to the fact that as the frame deforms the load transferred from the
actuator is at a slight angle. This would cause a portion of the load from the actuator to
be applied as a vertical force in the frame.
212
Figure 6.4.5 - North Beam Axial Forces (HSS-01)
The total shear resisted in the columns during the tension excursion of the brace also
appeared to increase linearly with increasing load. On the other hand the total shear
resisted by the columns in the compression excursion of the brace increases faster as the
brace degrades in compression. For specimen HSS-03 the percentage of shear carried
by the brace in compression was approximately 87% at the start of the test and by cycle
42 the percentage had dropped to approximately 21% as shown in Figure 6.4.6. In
contrast, the shear force resisted by the columns in brace tension remains fairly constant
until the brace begins to yield as shown in Figure 6.4.6. The percent shear carried by
the brace in tension only reduces to approximately 70% by the end of the test. Similar
trends were seen for all specimens.
213
Figure 6.4.6 - Percent Shear in Brace (HSS-03)
6.5 Shear Tab Connections

Calculations of moment indicate that a significant moment is transferred to the NW and
SE shear tab connections. This is also demonstrated by the bolt-hole deformation as
indicated in the previous chapter. Figure 6.5.1 shows moment-rotation response for the
NW connection. Figure 6.5.2 shows moment-rotation response for the SE connection.
Figure 6.5.2 does not include a moment-rotation response for HSS-04 because column
shear was not known. (faulty strain gauge in the column)
The figures show that when the brace was in compression there were larger moments
and rotations in the NW connections. The boundary conditions of the test setup allow
rotations of the beam relative to the column more in one direction than the other. In
contrast, the SE shear tab connection is able to rotate in both directions, as shown in
Figure 6.5.2.
As is shown the curves are similar from one specimen to the next except in the case of
the SE connection for specimen HSS-03. The variability is attributed to the fit up and
214
behavior of the column base. As mentioned, the column base pivots as the frame
displaced. In the case of specimen HSS-03 this pivoting resulted in rotation of the
column relative to the beam. The pivoting of the columns would also affect the moment
distribution as well as the readings in the strain gauges. The stress concentrations
induced in the flanges as the frame deformed could cause the strain gauge to read local
strain effects that would effect the moment calculations.
Figure 6.5.1 - Moment Rotation Curve (SE Connection)

215
Figure 6.5.2 - Moment Rotation Curve (NW Connection)
6.6 System Response

Table 6.6.1 provides peak values of applied force and the drift ratio for each specimen.
As the table indicates the values of drift increased with each subsequent test. The
exception to this is specimen HSS-03. The values shown here have higher peak values
of drift for brace compression and lower values of drift for brace tension. The actual
response would be expected to be close to the range of HSS-04. That is, if the drift
range is shifted to account for the new starting point for the second half of the test the
drift range would be -2.64% and 2.31% for compression and tension respectively. This
shows that by using a smaller, more flexible gusset plate the ductility of the frame was
improved. This is due to the decreased rigidity of the gusset plate connection which
allows the beams and columns to bend over a larger area. Additionally, improved
ductility of the gusset plate helped distribute the inelastic action of the brace over a
larger area. As was shown the brace reached larger values of out-of-plane deflection
216
which was a result of bending over a larger length. This helps to prevent the onset of
local buckling which allows larger story drifts to occur.
The difference in peak tension and compression drifts is attributed to the difference in
stiffness of the system in tension and compression as well as localized frame
deformations caused by the test setup. The increased frame resistance in tension leads
to larger forces in the tension excursion of the brace. This caused larger losses of
displacement in the test setup than in compression. Losses include: slip of the load
beam and compression of the elastomeric pad between the actuator and the reaction
block, larger values of elastic shortening of actuator assembly and north beam of the
test frame. Although none of these are large, added up they contribute to the difference
in drift.
Table 6.6.1 - Peak Force and Drift Values
Energy dissipation was calculated over time for the total system, brace and gusset plate,
and the brace. The energy was calculated using equation 6.1. For the total system
energy values of force and displacement were taken to be the applied force from the
actuator and the calculated story drift. The force used for the other two curves was
taken as the force in the brace calculated using equation 6.8. The displacement used for
the calculation in energy dissipation for the brace and the gusset plate was taken to be
the change in length of the frame diagonal as measured by device 41. The displacement
used for the calculation of the brace energy was the displacement calculated using
equation 6.20. System energy dissipation was similar for all specimens with total
217
values of approximately 7000 kip-in. Specimen HSS-01 had the lowest computed value
where as HSS-05 had the highest.
Figure 6.6.1 shows a plot of the continuous total energy dissipation for specimen HSS-
05 through cycle 36. After this point the device measuring brace elongation had to be
removed. Therefore, it was not possible to calculate values of brace energy after this
point. As the plot shows that the majority of the energy is dissipated by the brace. The
plot shows that only a small portion of the energy is dissipated by the gusset plate. The
figure also shows that the contribution of energy dissipation of the brace decreases,
which is a result of the degradation of the brace. This is indicated by the increase of the
gap marked as "Frame" in the figure, which is the portion of energy dissipated by the
frame.
Figure 6.6.1 - Energy Dissipation Comparison (HSS-05)

218
Table 6.6.1 shows average calculated minimum and maximum contributions of energy
dissipation for the brace, beam/columns and the gusset plate for specimen HSS-05. At
lower drift levels the brace is responsible for approximately 95% of energy dissipation
in the system. The remainder is dissipated by the frame elements. As the gusset plate
begins to yield a small amount of the total energy is the dissipated by the gusset plate.
At larger drift levels the amount of energy dissipated by the brace and gusset plate
reduces and the amount of energy dissipated by the frame increases. As the table shows
the gusset plate contributes only a small portion of the total energy dissipated in the
system. The values shown in the table are consistent with the findings of Shaback and
Brown. (34)
Table 6.6.1 - Percent of Total Energy Dissipated (HSS-05)
This data indicates that yielding of the gusset plate does not directly increase energy
dissipation. However, yielding of the gusset plate improved the system response. That
is, increasing the flexibility and inelastic action in the plate improved the yielding
hierarchy of the system. As was shown in specimen HSS-02 inelastic action of the
system was mainly limited to the brace. In specimen HSS-05, the brace was allowed to
bend over a larger area and more yield mechanisms were reached throughout the
system. This allowed for larger displacements and a longer fracture life of the brace.
219
Chapter 7
Implications for Design
7.0 Introduction
This chapter provides a comparison between the observed behavior and the predicted
behavior. Specifically a discussion of brace behavior, gusset plate behavior and weld
behavior will be covered. In addition a factors will be discussed as they apply to the
tests in this report.
7.1 Brace Behavior

The maximum compressive load calculated using the AISC method is dependant on the
parameters k and effective length le. Table 7.1.1 provides calculated values of these
parameters. These values were found by comparing the maximum calculated values
found using equations 6.5 and 6.6 to the predicted values found using AISC procedures,
which are provided in Table 6.2.2. Values of k were back calculated by adjusting k
such that the predicted buckling load matched the measured buckling load. For these
calculations the effective length was set equal to the brace length illustrated in Figure
6.2.1. In a similar fashion values of effective length were back calculated by setting k
equal to 1.0. The tabulated values of k and le are the average values calculated by
comparing the predicted buckling load to equations 6.5 and 6.6.
Table 7.1.1 - Buckling Parameters

220
As the table shows in most cases the values of k and le are close to those prescribed by
AISC. The average k value calculated for all tests was 0.95. This suggests that a lower
value of k could be used in some cases. However, the value of 1.0 seems appropriate.
The tensile yield strength of the braces was much larger than the design strength as
shown in Table 7.1.2. The recommended value for Ry underestimated the actual
overstrength of the brace. The average Ry value for the brace in all tests was
approximately 1.5. (grade A500-B steel) An accurate estimate of Ry is important to
achieve the yielding hierarchy. Therefore, this value may need to be reconsidered.
Table 7.1.2 - Brace Yield Strength
7.2 Plate Behavior

The equation presented in Chapter 3 for buckling of the plate along the Whitmore
section appears to be adequate. Calculations using this method would suggest that the
buckling load of the plate is much greater than the buckling capacity of the brace, which
was the observed behavior.
To achieve the desired hierarchy, plate yielding must occur prior to brace fracture not
before brace yielding. Table 7.2.1 provides data on the Whitmore yield capacity for
each gusset plate. The table also shows the calculated tensile strength of the brace using
the measured brace strength. Values of are provided for Whitmore yielding compared
to the tensile strength of the brace. The values are found by dividing the predicted
Whitmore yielding capacity by the brace yielding capacity. The tabulated values of
221
are consistent with observed test behavior. That is, observed yielding did not occur in
the gusset plate at the brace end. On the other hand yielding was observed in specimens
HSS-03 through HSS-05 at the brace end.
Table 7.2.1 - Gusset Plate Yielding
The yield strength of the gusset plate in HSS-01 is considered an anomaly and most
likely a mistake made by the steel supplier. The steel that was said to be supplied was
A-572 but the extremely high yield strength would suggest a different type of steel was
supplied. For specimens HSS-02 through HSS-05 the theoretical strength
underestimates the steel capacity by an average of 17%. The theoretical strength was
based on a yield strength equal to RyFy and the thickness of the steel ordered.
Comparing this data to the strength and thickness of the steel provided suggests that a
Ry value of 1.3 would provide a more representative strength of A-572 steel instead of
1.1 as required by AISC seismic provisions. The test results show that specimens HSS-
03 and HSS-05 had an improved performance over HSS-01 and HSS-02. As stated this
is attributed to the yielding of the gusset plate. Results suggest that a value of 0.85
seems to provide the desired yielding in the gusset plate. This is based on system
performance tabulated values of in Table 7.2.1.
The clearance requirement as recommended in the AISC seismic provisions (2) was
experimentally shown to allow the brace to bend out-of-plane as designed. However, as
was shown, this requirement led to a lager gusset plate. The proposed "elliptical"
method proved to provide a gusset plate design in which sufficient ductility was
provided to allow out-of-plane deformations in the brace without initiating tearing of
222
the gusset plate. The gusset plate is sized using equations 7.1 through 7.5. This is done
by adjusting the value of x' such that equation 7.5 is satisfied. The parameters in the
equations are illustrated in Figure 7.2.1. This method is described in further detail in
Section 3.5.3.
1
2
Height
Width = 2 tan ( ) + eb tan ( ) e c (7.2)
2
x2
y = 1 2 b 2 (7.3)
a
x = [x' cos( ) + (eb ec )] Width (7.4)
y + (x') sin ( ) Height = 0 (7.5)
Figure 7.2.1 - Elliptical Clearance Dimensions
The out-of-plane bending stiffness for the gusset plates was estimated for HSS-03
through HSS-05. This was done using the rotation of the gusset plates found from
equation 6.20, and the bending moment capacity of the plate. The bending moment
223
capacity of the plate was found using yield line theory. The hinge line is shown in
Figure 7.2.2 and is a simplification of the ellipse hinge line observed in testing.
Although, this model does not satisfy compatibility it does allow for an estimation of
the moment capacity and the stiffness of the plate using the available data from the
tests.
Figure 7.2.2 - Gusset Plate Hinge Line
The moment capacity at first yielding is then calculated for a unit width using the
following equation:
t2
M y = Fy (7.6)
6
where Fy is the yield strength of the gusset plate. Similarly the plastic moment capacity
is calculated as:
t2
M p = Fy (7.7)
4
224
The moment capacity is then computed by multiplying the moment capacity per unit
width by the total length of the hinge line that contributes to bending resistance. The
total length is found using:
Ltot = L1 cos( 2 ) + L2 + L3 cos(1 ) (7.8)
where values of L1, L2, L3, 1 and 2 are given in Table 7.2.2
Table 7.2.2 - Yield Line Parameters
The secant stiffness of the plate can then be estimated using:

M Ltot
ks = (7.9)
plate
where M is the moment calculated from either equation 7.6 or 7.7, plate is the average
out-of-plane rotation calculated using equation 6.20. The rotation at which first
yielding occurred and then full plastification occurred was determined using observed
data from the tests. Due to the fact that this relied on full yielding of the plate to occur
the estimation of plate stiffness was only calculated for specimens HSS-03 through
HSS-05. Table 7.2.3 shows the results of this analysis for both gusset plates.
Table 7.2.3 - Gusset Plate Stiffness

225
As the table shows the values of stiffness for both plates do vary but are fairly similar.
Variability is a result of the simplifying assumptions made in order to calculate the
stiffness as well as potential errors in the value of measured rotation of the gusset plates.
Slight inaccuracies in the measured displacement could affect the calculated stiffness
significantly. However, these values provide an indication of the actual stiffness.
7.3 Weld Behavior

Bending in the gusset plate placed large demands on the welds. In addition to this,
stress concentrations existed in the corners of the plate, due to the deformations of the
frame. From the first test, it is evident that sizing the welds based solely on the axial
forces from the brace is inadequate. This is due to the fact that of the ultimate capacity
of the brace is underestimated using a Ry of 1.3. Additionally, the methods for sizing
the welds to not account for bending of the plate. As can be seen from tests HSS-02
through HSS-04 ductility is improved with larger welds (relative to HSS-01). However,
the available methods do not indicate the level of conservatism in the weld size.
Therefore, a new approach to sizing the welds is necessary. Two new approaches were
introduced in this paper. The method described in Section 3.5.3 proved to be adequate
for specimens HSS-02 through HSS-04. However, this method fails to address bending
of the gusset plate. The method described in Section 3.5.5 proposed sizing the welds
using the following equation.
Fy t p
w= (7.10)
1.4 Fexx
As discussed in Chapter 3, this equation is based on the strength of the gusset plate, and
was used to size the welds in specimen HSS-05. Using the measured strength of the
plate the factor was found to be 0.8. Although the ultimate failure mode of HSS-05
was fracture of the brace, the welds sustained considerable damage. Most of the weld
damage occurred within the first 4-in. of the gusset plate weld. Table 7.3.1 shows the
226
values calculated using equation 7.10 based on the plate properties and weld sizes used
in the gusset plate-to-frame connections for each specimen.
Table 7.3.1 - Weld Size Factors
Tabulated values of and the observed performance of the welds suggest that a value of
between 0.6 and 0.8 would be sufficient. Therefore, this equation may be adequate
using a smaller factor. Alternatively, the length of the welds could be sized using a
larger of around 0.9 and then the welds could be reinforced in the area that most weld
damage was observed. (approximately 4-in. from free edge of the gusset plate)
However, further testing is necessary to verify this theory.
7.4 Shear Tab Connection Stiffness

The connection stiffness for the NW and SE shear connections was calculated based on
the moment rotation envelopes. These envelopes are shown in Figures 7.4.1 and 7.4.2.
The level portions around the origin are attributed to initial slip of the bolts due to the
slight oversize of the bolt holes. The steep slope of moment rotation for the NW
connection is attributed to the fit of the load beam. For most specimens the load beam
restricted the connection from rotating during the tension excursion of the brace, which
represents the negative portion of the moment rotation curve.
227
Figure 7.4.1 - SE Moment Rotation Envelopes
Figure 7.4.2 - NW Moment Rotation Envelopes
The stiffness of the connection was found by fitting a best-fit bilinear curve to the
envelopes as shown in Figure 7.4.3. This figure shows the positive portion of the
228
moment envelope for the NW connection of HSS-03. Three points are indicated in the
figure and represent the points that were used to construct the best fit curve for both the
NW and SE shear connections. Table 7.4.1 provides the points for all specimens.
Negative values represent the lower left quadrant as shown in Figure 7.4.2 and positive
values represent the upper right quadrant. Note that the absence of a third point
indicates that the slope of the envelope was more linear than bilinear. An example of
this is shown in Figure 7.4.2 for specimen HSS-03.
Figure 7.4.3 - Moment Rotation Best Fit Curve (HSS-03)

229
Table 7.4.1 - NW Shear Connection Stiffness Values
Table 7.4.2 - SE Shear Connection Stiffness Values
The average secant stiffness for both connections in the elastic range was found to be
2.52x105 kip-in. This value is in close agreement with the findings of previous
research. (30) As Table 7.4.1 shows the secant stiffness for negative rotation is much
larger than the secant stiffness in positive rotation for the NW connection. This is
attributed to the test setup, which restricts rotation in this direction.
230
Chapter 8
Conclusions and Recommendations
8.0 Introduction
Section 8.1 provides a brief overview of each test that was conducted. This is followed
by conclusions based on the results and analyses of these tests. The final section
provides recommendations for future research.
8.1 Summary
Special concentrically braced frames (SCBF) are an economical system for resisting
lateral force and deformation demands imposed by earthquakes. Previous research has
influenced the current design of these systems. The current design provisions (e.g.
AISC) use a strength-based design approach in which the components of the frame are
designed to be stronger than the yield strength of the bracing member. Research has
shown that a capacity-based design approach can improve the seismic response of
lateral systems. More recent research has demonstrated that the ductility of MRF
systems can be further improved using a balance-design approach, in which a specific
yielding hierarchy is the primary seismic design objective. (29) The design approach
was adopted here for SCBF systems.
In this study, five full-scale SCBFs were tested. The center-to-center dimensions of the
frames were 12 feet by 12 feet. The brace was a square HSS section designed to buckle
out-of-plane. These specimens were used to evaluate and develop a balanced design
approach for SCBFs for which a targeted yielding hierarchy was defined.
The first specimen tested (HSS-01) was designed to meet current design codes. This
specimen was used as both a reference for the remaining tests and to evaluate the
current design provisions. Specimen HSS-01 reached a maximum drift of 1.15% (brace
231
in tension) and a minimum drift of -1.64% (brace in compression), with a maximum
applied load of 331 kips and a minimum load of -192 kips. Inelastic action of the frame
was limited to buckling and yielding of the brace with initial yielding of the framing
elements. The gusset plate remained elastic. System failure was a result of fracture of
the welds connecting gusset plate to the frame (SW Corner) while the brace was in
tension. The target failure mode of the system was fracture of the brace. Additionally,
the proposed yielding hierarchy of the system was not achieved. Therefore, the design
provisions used to detail specimen HSS-01 were considered inadequate.
The second specimen (HSS-02) was designed using a proposed "elliptical" clearance
requirement illustrated in Figure 3.5.5. This was a modification to the design
requirement of a clearance of "2tp" (AISC Seismic Provisions C13) which allowed for a
smaller gusset plate. In addition the weld size was increased from 3/16-in. to 1/2-in. in
order to prevent weld failure. This specimen reached a maximum drift of 1.84% and a
minimum drift of -2.34% with a maximum applied load of 338 kips and a minimum of
-169 kips. Inelastic action of the frame included buckling and yielding of the brace and
limited yielding of the gusset plate, beams and columns. System failure was a result of
brace fracture. Although this failure mode was the desired one, it was postulated that
additional inelastic action in the gusset plate would permit additional drift capacity of
the frame. To achieve this, a thinner gusset plate was used in specimen HSS-03 in
order.
Specimen (HSS-03) was identical to specimen HSS-02 except that the gusset plate
thickness was reduced from 1/2-in. to 3/8-in. Specimen HSS-03 reached a maximum
drift of 1.95% and a minimum drift of -3.00%. The maximum applied load was 365
kips and the minimum was -169 kips. System failure was a result of fracture of the
brace. The results show that the added yielding and flexibility of the gusset plate
increased the frame drift capacity. The increase drift in compression is particularly
232
noticeable. The level of yielding in the gusset plates in this specimen compared to
specimen HSS-03.
Specimen HSS-04 was designed using a shorter brace-to-gusset plate connection and a
slightly larger clearance requirement (8t instead of 6t using the elliptical clearance
definition) was used to improve constructability and performance. The specimen
reached a maximum drift of 2.15% and a minimum drift of -2.68%, with a maximum
applied load of 331 kips and a minimum of -171 kips. The failure of the system was a
result of brace fracture. Yield states reached in the beams columns, and gusset plate
exceeded those observed in previous tests. Yielding in the gusset plate was initiated at a
lower drift level than other specimens.
Specimen HSS-05 was designed to investigate appropriate weld sizes. This test was
identical to specimen HSS-03 with a smaller weld size (5/16-in.) used for the gusset
plate-to-frame joint. This specimen reached a maximum drift of 2.45% and a minimum
drift of -3.09%, which exceeded the drift capacities of the previous specimens. The
maximum applied load was 354 kips and the minimum was -161 kips. System failure
was a result of brace fracture. Inelastic action included buckling and yielding of the
brace and yielding of the gusset plate beams, and columns. Yielding in the frame and
gusset plate was less severe than HSS-04. Cracking occurred in the gusset plate-to-
frame connection welds initiated at -1.95% drift and weld fracture occurred at -3.09%
drift.
8.2 Conclusions
8.2.1 Clearance Requirement
The current "2tp" clearance requirement leads to a large uneconomical gusset plate size.
The large gusset plate reduces the flexibility of the connection and concentrates
inelastic action in the brace to a small area. An alternative design method which uses
an elliptical clearance requirement to size the gusset plate allows for a reduction in the
plate area. (48%) The specimen response showed that the smaller gusset plate increased
233
the drift capacity of the brace by allowing the brace to buckle out-of-plane without
tearing the plate and permitting a more even distribution of inelastic action in the SCBF
system. (Section 3.5.3)
8.2.2 Gusset Plate Thickness

Reducing the thickness of the gusset plate resulted in additional plate yielding and
served to increase the system ductility. The thinner plate accommodated the out-of-
plane rotations imposed by the buckling brace, which resulted in larger out-of-plane
deflections of the brace. Therefore, the drift capacity of the frame was increased. The
increased flexibility of the gusset plate led to end restraint conditions that more closely
resembled a pinned connection. This relieved the demands placed on the net section of
the brace by allowing the brace to hinge in and area away from the net section. As a
result of this, yielding was not observed in the area of the net section or net section
reinforcement of the brace.
The optimal plate thickness in these series of tests was determined using the limiting
thickness based on the Whitmore yielding criteria with a factor of 0.85. The absence
of yielding in the net section of the brace indicates that the need to reinforce the net
section of the brace is reduced when using a thinner more flexible gusset plate.
Although the thinner gusset plate did not meet the free edge buckling requirements
recommended by Astaneh-Asl (5), the plate did not buckle during testing, which
indicates that these requirements may be too restrictive for rectangular gusset plates.
8.2.3 Gusset Plate Welds

Methods for sizing welds vary widely in the level of conservatism provided. Current
design practice, such as the UFM, use the axial yield capacity of the brace to size the
welds; out-of-plane forced (e.g. bending) are not considered. Specimen HSS-01 showed
that this is not adequate. These methods do not account for the demands resulting from
brace buckling and relative rotation of the beam and column. A plastic design approach
234
was developed to design the welds for the expected demand. (Section 3.5.6) The limits
of this theory was tested (Specimen HSS-05) using a factor of 0.8. Although weld
tearing was observed, the method showed promise in predicting the weld capacity. For
design, to minimize the possibility of weld fracture, a smaller factor of 0.7 is
suggested. (Note HSS-02 through HSS-04 equals 0.6) Alternatively the weld could
be reinforced at the free edge of the gusset plate where cracking was observed.
However, further research is required to address this issue.
8.3 Recommendations for Future Research

Specimen parameters that were varied include: gusset plate size, gusset plate thickness,
gusset plate-to-frame weld size, and brace connection length. Further testing is needed
to explore the affect that other parameters have on the behavior of SCBF systems,
including:
Beam-to-column connection adjacent to the gusset plate
Further evaluation of the elliptical clearance requirement considering a wider
variety of gusset plate thicknesses
Evaluation of elliptical clearance requirement applied to tapered gusset plates
Evaluation of a capacity-based design approach with bolted brace-to-gusset
plate connections
Further investigation of the proposed weld design method (Section 3.5.6)
Further consideration of appropriate Ry values
Previous research (19) suggests that an accurate computer model of a braced frame
system would include:
In- and out-of-plane rotational stiffness of the gusset plate
Stiffness of the beam-to-column connections
Inelastic response of SCBF components
Therefore, further analysis is needed to develop accurate models of these parameters.

235
References
1. AISC Manual of Steel Construction, Load and Resistance Factor Design, 3rd
Edition, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois, 2001
2. AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute of

Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois, 2002
3. Aslani, F., Goel, S., Experimental and Analytical Study of the Inelastic Behavior of
Double Angle Bracing Members Under Severe Cyclic Loading, Research Report
UMCE 89-5, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, Michigan, February, 1989
4. Aslani, F., Goel, S., Xu, P., Effect of Stitch Spacing on the Cyclic Behavior of
Built-up Bracing Members, Report UMCE 87-8, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, Michigan, January, 1987
5. Astaneh-Asl, A., "Seismic Behavior and Design of Gusset Plates," Steel TIPS,
Structural Steel Educational Council, Moraga, California, December, 1998
6. Astaneh-Asl, A., Goel, S.C., and Hanson, R.D., Cyclic Behavior of Double Angle
Bracing Members with End Gusset Plates, Research Report UMEE 82R7,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan,
August, 1982
7. ATC 24, "Guidelines for Cyclic Seismic Testing of Components of Steel

Structures," Applied Technology Council, 1992
8. Becker, R., "Seismic Design of Special Concentrically Braced Steel Frames," Steel
TIPS, Structural Steel Educational Council, Moraga, California, November, 1995
9. Brown, V.L.S., "Stability of Gusseted Connections in Steel Structures," A thesis

submitted in partial fulfillment of Doctor of Philosophy in Civil Engineering,
University of Delaware, 1988
10. Cheng, J.J.R., Grondin, G.Y., Yam M.C.H, "Design and Behavior of Gusset Plate
Connections," Fourth International Workshop on Connections in Steel Structures,
Roanoke, VA, October 2000
11. Christopulos, A.S., "Improved Seismic Performance of Buckling Restrained Braced

Frames", Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle,
Washington, June, 2005
236
12. Cochran, M., Honeck, W.C., "Design of Special Concentric Braced Frames," Steel
TIPS, Structural Steel Educational Council, Moraga, California, May, 2004
13. FEMA 350, "Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame
Buildings," FEMA 350, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington,
D.C., 2000
14. FEMA 355C, "State of the Art Report on Systems Performance of Steel Moment
Frames Subject to Earthquake Ground Shaking," FEMA 355, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, D.C., 2000
15. FEMA 355D, "State of the Art Report on Connection Performance," FEMA 355,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., 2000
16. Gaylord, E.H., Gaylord, C.N., Stallmeyer, J.E., "Design of Steel Structures," 3rd
edition, New York, Mc-Graw-Hill, Inc., c1992
17. Grondin, G.Y., Nast, T.E., and Cheng, J.J.R., "Strength and Stability of Corner
Gusset Plates Under Cyclic Loading," Proceedings of Annual Technical Session and
Meeting, Structural Stability Research Council, 2000
18. Gugerli, H., Goel, S.C., Inelastic Cyclic Behavior of Steel Bracing Frames,
Report UMEE 82R1, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, January, 1982
19. Gunnerson, I., "Numerical Performance Evaluation of Braced Frame Systems",

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington,
December, 2004
20. Han Yoo, J., "Analytical Investigation on the Behavior of Braced Frame"
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington,
Expected June, 2006
21. Hardash, S, Bjorhovde, R., "New Design Criteria for Gusset Plates in Tension,"
Engineering Journal, AISC, Vol. 22, No. 2, Second Quarter, 1985
22. Hu, S.Z., Cheng, J.J.R., Compressive Behavior of Gusset Plate Connections,
University of Alberta, Department of Civil Engineering, Structural Engineering
Report, n153, July, 1987
23. Jain, A.K., Goel, S.C., Hanson, R.D, "Hysteresis Behavior of Bracing Members and
Seismic Response of Braced Frames with Different Proportions," Research Report
UMEE 78R3, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, Michigan, .July, 1978
237
24. Lehman, D., Roeder, C., Jung H. Y., Johnson, S., "Seismic Response of Braced
Frame Connections," 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Vancouver, B.C., Canada, Paper No. 1459, August 2004
25. Lesik, D.F., Kennedy, D.J.L., "Ultimate Strength of Fillet Welded Connections
Loaded in Plane," Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 17, No. 1, National
Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Canada, 1990
26. Murphy, G., "Advanced Mechanics of Materials," New York and London, McGraw-
Hill Book Company, Inc., c1946
27. Nast, T., Grondin, G., Cheng, R., Cyclic Behavior of Stiffened Gusset Plate-Brace
Member Assemblies, University of Alberta, Department of Civil Engineering,
Structural Engineering Report, n229, December, 1999
28. Rabinovitch, J., Cheng, R., Cyclic behavior of steel gusset plate connections,
University of Alberta, Department of Civil Engineering, Structural Engineering
Report, n 191, August, 1993
29. Roeder C.W., "Connection Performance for Seismic Design of Steel Moment
Frames," ASCE, Journal of Structural Engineering, p517-525, April, 2002
30. Roeder, C.W., MacRae, G., Leland, A., Rospo, A. "Extending the Fatigue Life of
Riveted Coped Stringer Connections." Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, v 10,
n 1, p 69-76 January/February 2005.
31. Roeder, C.W., Lehman, D.E. "Performance-Based Seismic Design of Concentrically

Braced Frames", National Science Foundation, Grant CMS-0301792
32. SAC Steel Project, "Protocol for Fabrication, Inspection, Testing and
Documentation of Beam-Column Connection Tests and Other Experiments," Report
No. SAC/BD-97/02, SAC Joint Venture, October 1997
33. Salmon, C.G., Johnson, J.E., "Steel Structures Design and Behavior," 4th edition,
HarperCollins College Publishers, c1996
34. Shaback, B., Brown, T., "Behaviour of square hollow structural steel braces with
end connections under reversed cyclic axial loading," Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, v 30, n 4, p 745-753, August, 2003
35. Tam M.C.H., Cheng J.J.R., "Behavior and Design of Gusset Plate Connections in
Compression," Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol 58, No. 5-8, Elsevier,
pgs 1143-59, 2002
238
36. Tamboli, A.R., "Handbook of structural steel connection design and details," New
York, McGraw-Hill, c1999
37. Timoshenko, S.P., Gere, J.M., "Theory of Elastic Stability," New York, McGraw-
Hill Book Company, Inc., c1961
38. Thornton, W.A., "Bracing Connections for Heavy Construction," Engineering

Journal, AISC, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 139-148., 1984
39. Tremblay R., "Inelastic seismic response of steel bracing members," Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, 58, 665-701, 2002
40. Uriz, P., "Summary Of Test Results For UC Berkeley Special Concentric Braced
Frame Specimen No. 1 (Scbf-1)", Retrieved May 5, 2005, from
http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~patxi/
41. Walpole, W. R. Behaviour of cold-formed steel RHS members under cyclic

loading. Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch, New
Zealand, 1996
42. Whitmore, R.E., "Experimental Investigation of Stresses in Gusset Plates," Bulletin

No. 16, Engineering Experiment Station, University of Tennessee, 1952
43. Yam M.C.H., Compressive Behavior and Strength of Steel Gusset Plate
Connections, University of Alberta, Department of Civil Engineering, Fall, 1987
44. Yang, F., Mahin, S., "Limiting Net Section Fracture in Slotted Tube Braces," Steel
TIPS, Structural Steel Educational Council, Moraga, California, April 2005
45. Zhiyuan, L., Goel, S.C., "Investigation of Concrete-Filled Steel Tubes Under Cyclic
Bending and Buckling," Research Report UMEE 87-3, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, April, 1987
239
Appendix A
Specimen Design Drawings
A.1 General
This appendix contains detail drawings for all of the SCBF specimens that were tested
as part of this report. The first 10 figures are detailed drawings of specimens HSS-01
through HSS-05. These figures highlight the dimensions that are specific to an
individual specimen. The remaining figures are details of the test frame, which apply
for each frame. Drawings include weld sizes, bolt hole patterns and geometric
properties.
Figure A.1.1 Specimen HSS-01
240
Figure A.1.2 HSS-01 Gusset Plate Detail
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
Figure A.1.11 Standard Beam
250
Figure A.1.12 Beam End Details
251
Figure A.1.13 Test Setup Bolt Hole Patterns
252
Figure A.1.14 Typical East Column
253
Figure A.1.15 East Column Connection Details
254
Figure A.1.16 Typical West Column
255
Figure A.1.17 West Column Connection Details
256
257
Figure A.1.18 - Shear Tab Type 1
Figure A.1.19 - Shear Tab Type 2

258
Figure A.1.20 - CJP Connection Detail
Figure A.1.21 - Example Gusset Plate Detail

259
Appendix B
Design Examples
B.1 General
All calculations in this section are based on the material presented in Chapter 3 of this
report. Only the limiting check is shown when multiple checks are required to
determine the limiting value for calculating the design resistance. For example, when
determining the buckling capacity of the member, bending about both the strong-axis
and weak-axis must be checked but only the limiting case is shown. Another important
note is to mention that certain equations include factors and values of Ry, while others
do not. In some cases this is done as a conservative measure where the code does not
explicitly specify whether the value should be used or not as with the slenderness
checks. In other cases values are left out as a measure to ensure that the ultimate
capacity expected can be exceeded as with the ultimate brace strength.
Section B.2 covers the design of specimen HSS-01 and Section B.3 covers the design of
HSS-03. Section B.2 presents the entire frame design whereas Section B.3 covers only
the changes in design made from HSS-01 to HSS-03.
B.2 Example 1 (Straight 2t Clearance)

B.2.1 Member Selection
First the slenderness requirements and buckling capacity of the beams and columns
must be checked. Values of b/t and h/t are found using AISC Table 1-1. First the beam
was checked.
b E 29000
0.3 s 6.23 0.3 6.23 6.89
2t Fy 1.1(50 )
h E P
41.1 1.12 29000 2.33 350
1.12 s 2.33 u 41.1 44.88
t Fy Py
1.1(50 ) 0.9(13.3)(50 )
260
As can been seen the beam meets the slenderness requirements because the slenderness
ratios are less then the maximum value. Similarly the column meets these
requirements.
For the buckling capacity values for are found first. Only the limiting case is shown
here for the beam and column design. The unbraced length for weak-axis buckling was
taken to be half of the unbraced length for strong-axis buckling due to the fact that out-
of-plane restraints would be present. The length of the columns was taken as 13 feet
and for beams 11 feet. As stated in the text the beam used was a W14x45 and the
column a W12x72.
Kl Fy 1(5.5 *12) 50
beam = = = 0.556
r E 1.57 29000
therefore
( )
Fcr = 0.658 0.556 (50) = 43.939ksi
2
and
Pn = (0.85)43.939(13.3) = 496.73kips
similarly for the columns
Kl Fy 1(13 * 12) 50
column = = = 0.388
r E 5.31 29000
therefore
( )
Fcr = 0.658 0.388 (50) = 46.94ksi
2
and
Pn = (0.85)46.94(21.1) = 841.91kips
The calculated capacity of the beam and column lead to a factor of safety of 1.42 and
2.41 respectively. This is slightly smaller than the factor of safety discussed in the text.
However, this was deemed acceptable to allow for increased economy of the frame.
The next step was to check the capacity of the brace starting with slenderness checks.
261
Based on the capacity of the actuator a HSS 5x5x3/8 section was used. From Table I-8-
1 of the AISC seismic provisions slenderness requirements must be met for rectangular
HSS sections.
b E 29000
0.64 s 11.3 0.64 11.3 14.09
t Fy 1.3(46)
As can be seen the brace is adequate for the slenderness requirements. The tensile and
compressive capacity of the brace is determined next. The area of the brace is 6.18 in2
and the radius of gyration is 1.87". The length of the brace was known to be 11'-13/16".
Tmax = R y Fy Ag = 1.3(46)(6.18) = 369.56kips
Kl Fy 1(11.1)(12) 1.3(46)
brace = = = 1.03
r E 1.87 29000
C max = .6581.03 (1.3)(46)(6.18) = 237.14kips

2
The maximum tensile and compressive forces were then used to design the gusset
connections.
B.2.2 Brace-to-Gusset Plate Connection

A 5/16" weld was chosen for the brace-to-gusset plate connection due to the fact that this
is the maximum size for single pass weld. Using this weld size was considered to be the
most economical detail for this connection. Therefore, knowing the maximum tensile
strength and the weld size the minimum connection length was determined.
Tmax =
0.75
1.1
(
(0.6)FEXX 1.0 + 0.5 sin 1.5 Aw)
Tmax =
0.75
(0.6)70(1.0 + 0.0)(0.707 ) 5 l (4)
1.1 16
solving
l = 14.6"
therefore use
l = 14.75"
262
The net section of the brace must also be checked due to the slot needed to connect the
brace to the gusset.
Ae Fu = 1.1Ag Fy
In this equation Ry is left out due to the fact that material properties of the brace were
known. Also, as Fy increases Fu will also increase. Although Fu will typically not
increase at the same rate Fy will the phi factor of 1.1 will account for difference of
increase in strength. Knowing Fy and Fu the needed Ae can be solved for.
1.1(6.18)(46)
Ae = = 5.39in 2
58
The effective area of the brace can be determined according to AISC LRFD. Here it is
assumed that a thickener plate will need to be provided and that the gross area of the
brace is the original area minus the area removed for the slots.
1 1 3
Ae = UAn = 0.9 6.18 2 + + (2)Athickener
2 16 8
Ae = 5.18 + (0.9)(2)Athickener = 5.39in 2
Solving for Athickener
Athickener = 0.117in 2
A 3" x 10" x 1/4" plate was chosen for compatibility and constructability. AISC
specifies that the minimum weld size is based on the thicker material joined. Therefore,
the brace thickness controlled and the minimum weld size is 3/16". Thus, the 1/4"
thickness allowed for ease of construction. The width of 3" was chosen to ensure
adequate distribution of stresses in the thickener plate. The thickener plates were
attached on the top and bottom of the brace placed symmetrically about the slot.
Longitudinal welds were used to attach the plate to the brace.
Athickener Fu = 0.75(65) = 48.75kips
48.75 =
0.75
(0.6)FEXX (1.0 + 0.5 sin 1.5 )Aw
1.1
Solving for w
263
1.1(48.75)
w= = 0.24"
(0.75)(0.6)(70)(0.707 ) 10 (2)
2
Therefore, use 1/4" welds.
B.2.3 Gusset Plate Design

First Determine Plate thickness.
Block Shear:
[
Tmax = Rn = 0.6 Fu Anv + Fy Ant ]
Agv = Anv = 2(14.75)tp
Agt = Ant = 5tp
[
369.56 = 0.75 0.6(65)2(14.75)t p + (50 )5t p ]
solving;
tp = 0.352"
Whitmore Yielding:
Tmax = Rn = 0.9 Fy Lw t
369.56 = 0.9(50)[2(14.75 tan (30) + 5)]t p
Solving;
tp = 0.372"
Whitmore Fracture:
Tmax = Rn = 0.75Fu Lw t
369.56 = 0.75(65)[2(14.75 tan (30) + 5)]t p
Solving;
tp = 0.344"
Therefore, a minimum thickness of 3/8" is needed for adequate resistance in tension.

However, due to the variability present in the prediction of buckling capacity of the
264
plate a thickness of 1/2" was chosen for this specimen to ensure that gusset plate
buckling was prevented.
The next step was to determine plate size. Using rectangular plates:
= eb tan ec + tan
For a W16x45 beam eb is 8.05" and for a W12x72 column ec is 6.15". Using the
equations for height and width as presented in chapter 3:
1
Height = x'+ Lc + b sin ( ) + (s ) cos( )
2
5
Height = 22.81 + 14.75 + sin (45) + (1) cos(45) = 29.03"
2
2(0.5)
Width = eb ec + ( x') cos( ) ( x')sin( ) tan ( 90 )
cos( )
2(.5)
Width = 8.05 6.15 + (22.81) cos(45) (22.81)sin(45) tan (45 90) = 32.74"
cos(45)
29.03
= 8.05 tan (45) 6.15 + tan (45) = 16.415"
2
Therefore, all equations are satisfied and the plate size has been found. For HSS-01 a
plate size of 34" x 30" x 1/2" used in order to allow for a weld size of 3/16" according to
Method 1 of sizing welds as described in Chapter 3.
Next check the buckling capacity of the plate;
Kl ave 12 Fy 0.5(17.47") 12(50)

= = = 0.80
t p 29000 0.5 29000
The value of lave was found using the average of l1, l2 and l3 as described in Chapter 3.
The values of l1, l2 and l3 were taken from the design drawing and were 15.369",
23.698" and 12.682" respectively. Solving for the buckling capacity:
Rn = (0.85)0.658 0.8 (50)22.03(0.5) = 358.16kips

2
265
Since the buckling capacity of the plate is greater than that of the brace the gusset plate
design is adequate.
B.2.4 Gusset Plate-to-Frame Connection Design

B.2.4.1 Interface Forces
r= ( + ec )2 + ( + eb )2
r= (17 + 6.15)2 + (15 + 8.05)2 = 32.668"
15 6.15
Vuc = 369.56 = 169.69kips H uc = 369.56 = 69.57kips
32.668 32.668
8.05 17
Vub = 369.56 = 91.07kips H ub = 369.56 = 192.31kips
32.668 32.668
B.2.4.2 Gusset Plate-to-Frame Joint Design

Use fillet welds on both sides of the gusset plate to attach to the beam and column
elements. By combining the horizontal and vertical interface forces, Table 8-5 from
AISC LRFD can be used to size the welds.
Gusset Plate-to-Column Connection:

H uc
tan =
Vuc
= 22.29 o
Assuming theta is 15 degrees
C = 2.97
1.4 Puc (1.4) (69.57 ) + (169.69)

2 2
Dmin = = = 2.98
CC1l 2.97(1)(30 1)
Use 3/16" weld.

266
Gusset Plate-to-Beam Connection:
Vuc
tan =
H uc
= 25.34 o
Assuming theta is 15 degrees
C = 2.97
1.4 Pub 1.4 (192.31) + (91.07 )

2 2
Dmin = = = 3.0
CC1l 2.97(1)(34 1)
Use 3/16" weld. In the two previous calculations of the weld size the length of the gusset
plate was reduced by 1" to account for the weld access in the frame corner.
3.2.4.3 Base Material

Rn = 2[0.75(0.6)0.565(34 1)65] = 1090.73kips
Therefore the base material is adequate since it is greater than the resultants of the
interface forces.
3.2.4.4 Beam Web Strength

Check Local Yielding of Beam Web:
Rn = (2.5k + N )Fy t w
Rn = (2.5(0.967 ) + (34 1))50(0.345) = 610.95kips

Equation K1-2 was used conservatively. However, as can be seen the beam web is
more than adequate for web yielding in that the resistance is approximately three times
greater than the interface forces.
Check Crippling of Beam Web:

The concentrated force is applied at a distance greater than d/2 therefore:
1.5
EF t
N t
Rn = (0.75)0.80t 1 + 3 w
2 y f

w
d t f t
w
267
(34 1) 0.345 29000(50)(0.565)
1.5
Rn = (0.75)0.80(0.345) 1 + 3
2

16.1 0.565 0.345
Rn = 432.94kips
This force is much larger than the expected interface forces caused by the compressive
force of the brace. Therefore the beam is adequate for all checks. Similarly the column
satisfies all checks.
B.2.5 Beam-to-Column (CJP)

Beam-column Connection Forces are illustrated in Chapter 3. As discussed,
equilibrium is applied in order to obtain the required design forces.
192.31(16.1) 91.07(17 )
R1 = = 96.15kips
16.1
R2 = 192.31- 96.15 = 96.16kips
R3 = 91.07
Using complete penetration welds for the beam web:

Rn = 0.75(0.6)t w Fy l
In this equation l is found by taking the depth of the member minus the thickness of the
flanges and accounting for the weld access holes which are both 1".
l = 16.1 2(0.565) 2(1) = 12.97"
Rn = 100.68kips
For this specimen the resistance is adequate. When more resistance was required, as in
specimen HSS-03, the shear plate, that was used to temporary hold the beam in place,
was then reinforced with a fillet weld connecting the shear plate to the beam web.
Using complete penetration welds for the beam flanges.

Rn = 0.9(0.565)(50)(7.04) = 179kips
Therefore the beam flange has adequate strength.
268
B.2.6 Beam-to-Column (Simple Shear)
B.2.6.1 Initial Design
Using the plastic capacity of the beam a shear force can be found to design the
connection.
1.5M p 1.5(50)(82.3)
V = = = 66.59kips
l 92.7
Using Table 10-9 an initial design is found using: 3/4 diameter A490X bolts with
standard holes, 13 x 4 1/2 x 3/8 Plate and 5/16 Fillet welds to connect the shear plate
to column flange. Assuming a flexible connection Rn = 69.8 kips. Then using Table
10-1 web bearing of the beam is checked. From this table for an uncoped W16 beam:
Rn = 351t w = 351(0.345) = 121.1kips
Therefore, according to initial design the shear connection design is adequate. The next
step is to verify adequacy by checking each limit state individually. As mentioned the
shear plate was assumed to be grade A572 steel.
B.2.6.2 Bolt Strength

From AISC Table 7-10 the bearing capacity of a single A490X bolt in single shear is
24.9 kips.
66.59
Fv = = 16.65kips 24.9
4
Therefore the bolt strength is adequate.
B.2.6.3 Bearing Strength

rn = 0.75(1.2)Lc (t )Fu 0.75(2.4)d (t )Fu
3 3
rn = 0.75(2.4) (65) = 32.9kips
4 8
Since the bearing capacity of the plate is greater than the strength of the bolt the shear
plate is adequate for bearing. Similarly it was found that the beam web was adequate
for bearing.
269
B.2.6.4 Shear Strength of Plate
First the elastic yield strength of the plate is checked:
Rn = 0.75(0.6)Fu Anv
where
3 1 3
Anv = 13 4 = 3.6563in 2
4 16 8
therefore
Rn = 0.75(0.6)65(3.563) = 106.95kips
Next shear yielding is checked:
2 3
Rn = 0.9(0.6 ) (13)50 = 87.75kips
38
Finally block shear is checked:
3
Agv = 11 = 4.125in 2
8
3 1 3
Anv = 11 + 3.5 = 3.059in 2
4 16 8
3
Agt = 1.5 = 0.5625in 2
8
3 1 1 3
Ant = 1.5 + = 0.41in 2
4 16 2 8
Rn = 0.75[0.6 Fu Anv + Fy Agt ] 0.75[0.6 Fu Anv + Fu Ant ]
Rn = 0.75[0.6(65)(3.059 ) + (65)(0.41)] = 109.46kips

The limiting value is 87.75 kips which is greater than 66.59kips therefore the plate has
sufficient shear strength.
B.2.6.5 Plate Bending

V (e ) = 66.59(3) = 199.77 k in
270
1 3
Rn = 0.9 (13)2 (50 ) = 475.3k in
6 8
Thus, the plate has sufficient bending capacity.
B.2.6.6 Shear Plate Welds

Table 8-5 is used to size the filled welds that connect the shear plate to the face of the
column flange. The needed values are as follows:
k =0
Here k is conservatively taken to be zero. However, the actual value of k could be used
with linear interpolation to find a more accurate value of C.
e 3
a= = = 0.231
l 13
Linearly interpolating between tabulated values for a of 0.20 and 0.25
2.64 + 2.48
C 2.56
2
Rn = CC1 Dl
C1 = 1 , D = 5 , l = 13
Rn = 166.4kips
As can be seen the weld strength is more than sufficient proving that our simplifications
were acceptable.
B.3 Example 2 (Elliptical Clearance)

This example follows the design calculations that were done for HSS-03. For this
example only the calculations that vary from the previous example will be shown.
These calculations include the sizing of the gusset plate and the sizing of the gusset
plate-to-frame welds.
271
B.3.1 Gusset Plate Design
Using the same brace-to-gusset plate connection the thickness of the gusset plate is first
determined. Assuming a factor of 0.9 for Whitmore yielding it was found that the
required gusset plate thickness is 3/8". Using this thickness the plate geometry was then
determined.
Using the equations described in section 3.2.5 a value of x' was found that satisfied all
equations simultaneously. Using a value of 9.99" for x'
1
Height = x'+ Lc + b sin ( ) + (s ) cos( )
2
5
Height = 9.99 + 14.75 + sin (45) + (1) cos(45) = 19.969"
2
Height
Width = 2 tan ( ) + eb tan ( ) ec
2
19.969
Width = 2 tan (45) + 8.05 tan (45) 6.15 = 23.769
2
x = [x' cos( ) + (eb ec )] Width
x = [9.99 cos(45) + (8.05 6.15)] 23.769 = 14.805"
x2 2

y = 1 2 b
a
3
a = Width 6t p = 23.769 6 = 21.519"
8
3
b = Height 6t p = 29.969 6 = 17.719"
8
(14.805)2
y = 1 (17.719 )2 = 12.859"

(21.519 )
2

y + ( x')sin ( ) Height = 12.859 + 9.99 sin (45) 19.969 = 0.05
272
As with specimen HSS-01 the plate size was increased by 1" for the welds. Therefore a
plate size of 25" x 21" x 3/8" was used for the gusset plate. The next step that will be
shown is the sizing of the gusset plate-to-frame welds using Method 2 of sizing the
welds as described in Chapter 3.
B.3.2 Gusset Plate-to-Frame Welds

The first step as with HSS-01 was to find the interface forces using the previous
method.
Vuc = 147.52kips H uc = 86.40kips
Vub = 113.10kips H ub = 175.62kips

As discussed in Chapter 3, the force used to design the welds is the summation of the
horizontal and vertical forces increased by 40%. Then using AISC equation A-J2-1:
(1.1)(1.4)(Vu + H u )
w=
2[( )(0.6 )(Fexx )Aw ]
w=
(1.1)(1.4)(147.52 + 86.40) = 0.404"
2[(0.75)(0.6)(70)(0.707 )(21 1)]
Therefore use a 7/16" weld for the gusset plate-to-column connection. Similarly:
w=
(1.1)(1.4)(113.10 + 175.62) = 0.425"
2[(0.75)(0.6)(70 )(0.707 )(25 1)]
Therefore use a 7/16" weld for the gusset plate-to-beam connection.
273
Appendix C
Test Setup Details
C.1 General
This appendix provides detailed information covering both the test setup and
instrumentation. The first section contains detailed design drawings of the test setup
components. A description of these components and how they were used is given in
Chapter 4 of this document.
The next section provides detailed information on the devices used to record data.
Descriptions are given as to how the devices were used and how they were attached to
the frame. Detailed information is given indicating the location of the instruments as
well as the data channel that they are associated with in the data files. Any changes
made to instrumentation configurations are also provided.
C.2 Test Setup Design Drawings

An overview of the test setup is presented in Figures C.2.1 and C.2.2. Figures C.2.3
through C.2.10 provide details of the channel assembly. The reaction block is detailed
in Figures C.2.9 and C.2.10. The adapter plate details are shown in Figure C.2.11. The
cap plate detail of the axial force system is given in Figure C.2.12. Figures C.2.13
through C.2.16 provide details for the load beam. Figures C.2.19 through C.2.21 are
details of the swivel and spiral washers used in this project. The scale of the drawing is
not provided and varies from figure to figure. This was done for convenience in
presenting the information in this document. However, all necessary dimensions are
provided on the drawings.
Figure C.2.1 Test Setup Plan View
274
Figure C.2.2 Test Setup Elevation
275
Figure C.2.3 Shear Connection Detail
276
Figure C.2.4 Channel End Plate
277
Figure C.2.5 Channel End Plate Welds
278
Figure C.2.6 Shear Plate
279
Figure C.2.7 Channel Column Restraint
280
Figure C.2.8 Channel Assembly Components
281
Figure C.2.9 Reaction Block Conduit Pattern
282
Figure C.2.10 Reaction Block Reinforcement Schematic
283
Figure C.2.11 Adapter Plate
284
Figure C.2.12 Cap Plate
285
Figure C.2.13 Load Beam Assembly
286
Figure C.2.14 Load Beam Detail
287
Figure C.2.15 Thickener Plate
288
Figure C.2.16 Load Beam Plates
289
290
Figure C.2.17 - Shear Connection Shim Plate
Figure C.2.18 - Load Beam Shim Plate

Figure C.2.19 Actuator Swivel Assembly
291
Figure C.2.20 Center Blade
292
Figure C.2.21 Side Blade
293
Figure C.2.22 Spiral Washer
294
295
C.3 Instrumentation
The location of all instruments is described in this section. As needed, figures and
tables are provided to indicate the location of each instrument for each specimen. HSS-
01 represents the reference for the potentiometer and strain gauge configurations.
Modifications to potentiometer configuration were made in later specimens due to
broken potentiometers as well as to adjust for measurements that were not working as
intended or those that were perceived unnecessary. Biaxial strain gauges were only
applied to the gusset plate for HSS-01. The gusset plate gauge configuration is shown
in Figure C.3.1.
Figure C.3.1 - Gusset Plate Strain Gauge Configuration (HSS-01)
As shown in Figure C.3.2 axial strain gauges were applied in pairs. Gauges were
attached in pairs at the same location along a given member for purposes of calculating
296
average axial forces, moments, and column shears. Strain gauges that were attached to
the beams and the columns were attached to the outer flange face centered over the web.
Strain gauges that were attached to the brace were attached in groups of four: one pair
to measure out-of-plane strains and the other pair to measure in-plane strains. All four
gauges were attached to the centerline of the brace. For specimens HSS-01 through
HSS-05 the frame gauges were attached in the same manner with locations as indicated
in Table C.3.3. HSS-01 had three sets of brace gauges. The channel numbers for the
brace gauges were changed for specimens after HSS-01 and are shown in Figure C.3.4.
It is also important to note that the second set of brace gauges in HSS-04 were high
elongation strain gauges. The location of the gauges is indicated in Table C.3.1.
Potentiometers used to measure the NW and SE shear connection rotations were spaced
as shown in Figure C.3.5 for each specimen. These devices were attached to the beam
flange using hot glue. This worked well except for specimens HSS-03 and HSS-04
when the south bolt of the NW connection sheared. When this happened the bolt struck
one of the devices and caused the device to fall off of the beam. However, this occurred
near the end of the test in both cases. The example of these devices is illustrated in
Figure C.3.6.
Devices connected to channels 7, 21, 35, and 49, were used to measure out-of-plane
movement of the frame corners. All devices, with the exception of device 49, were
located at the beam and column centerline intersection points. The location of Device
49 is shown in Figure C.3.6. The device was moved to allow placement of a W-section
that was used to prevent the SW corner from sliding down. In order to accommodate
the movement of the frame at the north end devices 7 and 35 rested against a shelf with
a sheet of stainless steel. The surface was lubricated with silicon grease to reduce
friction and allow frame movement without disturbing the device. An example of type
of device is shown in Figure C.3.7.
Figure C.1.2 Strain Gauge Configuration
297
298
Figure C.3.3 - Alternate Brace Gauge Configuration
Table C.3.1 - Strain Gauge Locations
Figure C.3.4 - Shear Connection Rotations

299
Devices
Figure C.3.5 - Shear Connection Devices
Figure C.3.6 - Channel and Column Devices
Column
Shelf
Stand
Device
Figure C.3.7 - Frame Corner Out-of-Plane Device

300
Devices 42 and 47 were used to measure any uplift of the channel assembly relative to
the strong wall. Device 30 was used to measure any slip of the channel assembly
relative to the wall. The location of these devices is shown in Figure C.3.6. This Figure
also shows the location of instruments 29, 43, 48 and 50. Device 29 and 43 were used
to measure any uplift of the columns relative to the channel assembly. For HSS-01
these devices were attached to the column web in the centerline of the column.
However, after the stiffener plate was added at the base of the column these devices
were moved to the outer faces of the column as shown in the figure. For specimen
HSS-02 the devices were attached directly to the column flanges. This proved
ineffective to the inelastic deformation of the column flange in this location. For HSS-
03 and HSS-04 the devices were attached as shown in Figure C.3.8. Table C.3.2
indicates the position of these devices in relation to the centerline of the column as
shown in Figure C.3.6. Devices 43 and 50 were used to measure slip of the column
relative to the channel assembly. For HSS-01 these devices were attached directly to
the channel assembly. Due to the magnitude of the observed uplift of the columns these
devices were later moved a small distance away from the channel assembly face. The
distances are shown in Table C.3.2. For HSS-01 the device was oriented such that it
faced the opposite direction as indicated in Figure C.3.6, but the figure is correct for
subsequent specimens.
Figure C.3.8 - Column Uplift Measurement Device

301
Table C.3.2 - Channel and Column Device Locations
Device 36 was used to measure frame translation and was located at the east column
face of the east column at the beam center line for all specimens. This device rested
against a piece of polished lubricated steel as well to allow for movement of the frame
without disturbing the device. Figure C.3.9 shows how this device was used.
Figure C.3.9 - Frame Translation Device
Device 22 was used to measure the slip of the load beam relative to the specimen. The
application of this device is shown in Figure C.3.10. In specimens HSS-03 and HSS-04
this device would eventually fall off of the specimen due to large inelastic deformations
of the north beam in this location.
302
Figure C.3.10 - Load Beam Slip Device
Devices 51 and 52 were used to measure movement of the reaction block relative to the
strong floor. The location of these devices is shown in Figure C.3.11. This figure also
shows, schematically, the location of device 34. This device was added after specimen
HSS-01 to measure the movement of the actuator relative to the reaction block. Device
34 was located at the top of the actuator parallel to the centerline of the actuator.
Figure C.3.11 - Reaction Block Devices

303
In order to measure out-of-plane displacement of the brace, devices 53 and 54 were
added for specimens HSS-03 through HSS-05. The two instruments were attached
perpendicular to each other at the midspan of the brace. Device 54 was oriented parallel
to the frame translation and device 53 was oriented perpendicular to the strong floor.
This was done in order to triangulate the measured displacement of the two devices.
This was needed in order to calculate the true out-of-plane motion due to the fact that
frame translation would affect the out-of-plane measurement recorded by device 53.
The two devices were attached using "music" wire by tap screwing into the bottom of
the brace at the midspan as shown if Figure C.3.12.
Figure C.3.12 - Brace Out-of-Plane Measurement Devices
Device 40 was used to measure brace elongation. This device was attached to both ends
of the brace using music wire as shown in Figure C.3.13. In a similar fashion device 41
was attached to the center points of the frame corners in the NE corner and the SW
corner. This device was used to measure the change in length along the frame diagonal.
304
Start
End
Figure C.3.13 - Brace Elongation Measurement Device
The channels used to measure beam and column rotations, at the gusset plate edge, are
shown in Figure C.3.14. Table C.3.3 provides measurements for how far the devices
were place away (out) from the inside face of the column flange and how far up from
the top face of the beam web (up). For specimen HSS-03 devices 2, 11, 14, 15, 19, 20
were omitted due to the fact that rotations of the beam and column in these locations
were minimal. For HSS-04 and HSS-05 device 14 and 15 were replaced with 19 and 20
and devices 2 and 11 were reattached due to larger deformations observed in HSS-03.
An example of how beam and column rotations were measured is shown in Figure
C.3.15.
305
Figure C.3.14 - Beam and Column Rotation Measurement Devices
Table C.3.3 - Rotation Measurement Device Locations
Figure C.3.15 - Column Rotation Device Example

306
The rotation of the brace relative to the gusset plate was measure using the devices
shown in Figure C.3.16. Also shown in this figure are the devices used to measure
brace torsion. The application of the devices is shown in Figure C.3.17. No torsion was
observed in any specimen and the attempt to measure any torsion in the brace did not
work very well. This was due to the severe out-of-plane displacement of the brace at
larger drift cycles. For specimens HSS-04 and HSS-05 these devices were omitted.
The location of these devices is indicated in Table C.4. For the torsion devices "up"
refers to the distance that the device was located above the top surface of the brace.
"Up" refers to the distance from the face of the gusset plate and "out" the distance from
the side of the brace, for the devices located at the side of the brace. The device at the
top face of the brace was used to measure out-of-plane rotations relative to the gusset
plate and is oriented about the centerline of the brace. In Table C.3.4 "up" refers to the
distance from the top surface of the brace for these devices. For specimens HSS-04 and
HSS-05 devices 4 and 5 were replaced with 32 and 15 respectively. This was due to the
fact that devices 4 and 5 broke.
Figure C.3.16 - Brace Rotation Devices

307
Figure C.3.17 - Brace Rotation Device Example
Table C.3.4 - Brace Rotation Device Location
Out-of-plane rotations of the gusset plate were measured using the devices shown in
Figure C.3.18. These devices rested directly against the gusset plate and seemed to
work quite well. The exception to this was seen in HSS-04 in the NE corner. At larger
drift cycles there were large inelastic deformations in the column flange that caused the
shelf, which supported the devices, to move out-of-plate relative to the gusset plate
affecting the measurements. For specimen HSS-02 and HSS-03 devices 34 and 31 were
not used and device 0 was placed in the position of device 31. Device 10 was located in
308
the position of device 0 and device 0 was place in the position of device 10 for HSS-04
relative to the configuration of HSS-03. The application of devices is shown in Figure
C.3.19. The picture on the left is of the NE corner and the picture on the right is the SW
corner. The locations of these devices are tabulated in Table C.3.5.
Figure C.3.18 - Gusset Plate Out-of-Plane Devices
Figure C.3.19 - Gusset Plate Out-of-Plane Device Examples

309
Table C.3.5 - Gusset Plate Out-of-Plane Device Locations
310
Appendix D
Material Properties
311
Appendix E
Data Adjustments and Corrections
E.1 Data Adjustments

E.1.1 Cleaning Data Files
The first step in analyzing the data was to clean the data files. Since the data was
recorded continuously throughout the test, data was removed where pauses took place.
As was stated in a previous chapter, the loading was displacement based. Therefore,
data cleaning was based on LVDT readings from the actuator. That is, data points were
removed when LVDT readings were constant within a thousandth of an inch. Original
data files were compared with cleaned data files to help ensure that all peaks were kept
and that no phenomenon where removed. After this, the cycles were labeled based on
the LVDT zero point. The next step was to further reduce the file in order to account
for when potentiometers were removed or failed and when strain gauges were no longer
reliable. Testing notes were used to determine when potentiometers were removed.
Also, the data was checked to determine when potential slip or sticking of pots
occurred. These types of instrumentation error were apparent when sudden drastic
jumps in measurement were recorded that were not realistic or occurred without
plausible reason. A sudden jump typically indicated that the potentiometer slipped off
of the specimen. Another indication of instrument error was noticed when the
potentiometer had been recording cyclic motions and then had a spike in measurement
followed by a constant measurement. Some potentiometers fell off the specimen due to
local damage and were later reattached. The data for these instruments was corrected
by zeroing data from where the instrument was unattached and then correcting the
readings from when that instrument was reattached. Strain gauge readings were
assumed to be reliable as long as the recorded strain was less than Fy/E. After this,
yielding was assumed to have occurred making the gauge invalid. Section 6.1.3
provides a description of when gauges were assumed to be invalid for each test. To
312
check the column gauges, a strain value equal to 350/E was subtracted from measured
values to account for the prestressing of the columns. This is due to the fact that
recorded data is zeroed at the start of the test. A detailed account of instrumentation
error is given in the Section E.3 for each test.
E.1.2 Joining Data Files

When the data acquisition system first starts, an initial reading for each device is
recorded to a separate file. The initial values are then used to zero each device such
that, the data acquisition system is recording changes in length and strain from a zero
value. Although convenient, this can cause problems when multiple data files need to
be joined for one test. Such was the case for HSS-01 and HSS-01.
There were multiple data files for HSS-01 and HSS-03. For HSS-01 this was due to
unexpected termination of the data acquisition program, which was later fixed for
subsequent tests. However, as a result of the program terminating, the data for HSS-01
was recorded to four separate files. Another result of the program terminating is that,
only half of cycle 8 was recorded. Due to the fact that this was an elastic cycle and only
one of multiple cycles at the given drift level it was simply omitted. This data
represented the third of four files for HSS-01. Since each file began at an elastic cycle
of the test, the data files were simply spliced to each other without correction. This was
possible because, no permanent deformations or residual forces were present in the
specimen at the time the data acquisition system was started.
Due to the fact that HSS-03 was completed on two separate sessions there are two data
files for this specimen as well. The zero points for the second half of the test needed to
be corrected to account for permanent deformations that were present from the first half
of the test. An additional correction had to be made for HSS-03 in that the second half
of the test was cycled about a different zero point than the first half. In order to stop the
test any residual load in the actuator had to be removed by manually adjusting the
313
position of the actuator. Due to permanent deformations in the frame, the residual load
at zero was approximately 45 kips, which meant that the actuator had to be moved to
the tension side of zero in order to remove the load. This was a distance of
approximately 9/16-in.. For the second half of the test, cycles were started from this
point. This led to a larger displacement in compression excursion of the brace than
tension excursion of the brace. Therefore, in splicing the two data files together the
load cell reading was uncorrected. Since the initial load in the frame for second half of
the test was the same for the first half, the strain gauge readings were also uncorrected.
The LVDT and the potentiometers were corrected by adding the initial reading to each
data point in the second data file and subtracting the initial reading from the first data
file. By doing this, measured values were then representative of the measured
difference from the original zero point.
E.2 Instrument Failure

Tables E.2.1 and E.2.2 indicate which strain gauges and potentiometers became
ineffective for each test and during what cycle. The process mentioned in section 6.1.1
was used to determine when the instruments were ineffective in order to generate these
tables. Calculated data was adjusted accordingly to account for missing instruments.
Table E.2.1 - Gauge Failure

314
Table E.2.2 - Potentiometer Failure
E.3 Correcting Potentiometer Error

Additional corrections were necessary for calculating the story drift of specimen HSS-
02. This was necessary due to further difficulties with instrumentation for devices 29,
46 and 48. These instruments were attached in such a way that inelastic action in the
frame caused error in the readings and in some cases caused the instruments to fall off
of the specimen. This problem was corrected for subsequent specimens.
Figure E.3.1 shows a plot of the original recorded data for device 29. As is shown in
the figure there are three key locations that resulted in error of the readings. Data was
offset by a constant value to correct for the location where the device slipped and then
later when it was reattached. The offset value for the first case was based on the
amount of initial slip. The device was reattached at the maximum uplift in the column.
Therefore, the data was offset by the distance the column had separated from the
channel assembly. The missing data for the cycles where the device was not attached to
the specimen had to be based on trends seen in the data rather than actual measurements
taken. Figure E.3.2 shows the corrected data for device 29. The measurements taken
by the same device in specimen HSS-03 are shown in Figure E.3.3. As can be seen the
plots from Figures E.3.2 and E.3.3 are both similar in shape and magnitude. Although
several corrections were necessary for this specimen, the force drift response of this
specimen is consistent with that of the other specimens. Therefore, the corrections were
assumed to be reliable for comparison with other specimens.
315
Figure E.3.1 - Uncorrected Device 29 HSS-02
Figure E.3.2 - Corrected Device 29 HSS-02

316
Figure E.3.3 - Device 29 HSS-03
Additionally, the recorded values for the actuator LVDT and load cell were corrected in
the data for HSS-01 through HSS-04. It was necessary to adjust the values due to the
fact that the calibration factors were incorrect. Therefore, recorded LVDT values were
adjusted by a factor 0.959 and the load cell by a factor of 0.9583. These values were
determined after the completion of test HSS-04 and corrected before testing HSS-05.

Shawn Johnson Thesis (HSS01-HSS05)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Shawn Johnson Thesis (HSS01-HSS05)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shawn Johnson Thesis (HSS01-HSS05)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Improved Seismic Performance of

Special Concentrically Braced Frames

Master of Science in Civil Engineering

Program Authorized to Offer Degree:

Improved Seismic Performance of

Chair of Supervisory Committee:

This is to certify that I have examined this copy of a master's thesis by

and have found that it is complete and satisfactory in all respects,

1.1.1 Force-Drift Response for Single Brace..............................................................1

1.1.1 Possible Performance Objectives for SCBFs.....................................................5

Figure 1.1.1 - Force-Drift Response for Single Brace

Figure 1.1.2 - Force-Drift Response for Double Brace

RyFyAg < Rn (1.2)

Figure 1.1.3 - Yield Mechanisms and Failure Modes of SCBF Components

A performance-based design approach is proposed to improve the seismic design of

Seldom Rare Maximum Considered

Limited Local Extensive Inelastic Large Inelastic

A performance-based design approach will balance the yielding mechanisms to

1.2 Research Objectives

1.3 Overview of Report

2.1 Brace Performance

Figure 2.1.1 - Test Schematic by Shaback and Brown (2003)

Figure 2.1.2 - Buckling Shape

2.2 Gusset Plate Performance

Figure 2.2.1 - Test Schematic by Nast et al (1999)

2.3 System Performance

Figure 2.3.1 - Test Schematic by Astaneh-Asl et al (1982)

Figure 2.3.2 - Test Schematic by Uriz (2004)

2.4 Summary of Research

Figure 3.0.1 Prototype Specimen

3.2 Design Specifications

Figure 3.2.1 - Clearance Requirement

3.3 Design Calculations

3.3.2 Member Selection

3.3.3 Brace-to-Gusset Plate Connection

Figure 3.3.1 - Brace-to-Gusset Plate Connection

Figure 3.3.2 - Block Shear Illustration

Figure 3.3.3 - Whitmore Width

tan = eb tan ec (3.4)

Figure 3.3.4 - Uniform Force Method

Figure 3.3.5 - 2t Clearance Dimensions

3.3.5 Gusset Plate-to-Frame Joint Design

Figure 3.3.6 - UFM Resolved Forces

Figure 3.3.7 - KISS Resolved Forces

3.3.5.2 Gusset-to-Frame Weld Design

The angle at which this resultant force acts is found using:

Rn = (Rnv )2 + (Rnt )2 (3.19)

1.1Rn = 0.75t weld (0.6 )(0.707 )Fexx (3.23)

3.3.5.3 Base Material

Rn = 2[t f lFy ] (3.24)

Rn = 2[ (0.6)(0.85)t f lFu ] (3.25)

3.3.5.4 Beam Web Strength

3.3.6 Beam-to-Column (CJP)

Figure 3.3.8 - Beam-to-Column Reactions

where Mub is equal to Vub multiplied by .

for the beam web

where the length l is taken to the length as shown in Figure 3.3.9.

Figure 3.3.9 - Plastic Rotation Length